A story that seems tailor-made for internet comment thread arguments: Twitter has blocked access for those inside Germany to the tweets of a German neonazi group, whose very existence is against the law in Germany. Chilling Effects has the legal request that led to the content block. Notably, the hate group is fond of teddy bears.

  • Boundegar

    Free speech means different things in different countries.

    • nowimnothing

      One of the few areas where I can proudly say that the U.S. has a better definition than most of the world.

      • Navin_Johnson

        Since it’s the best, in what tangible way has this made our country more successful than other countries that have stricter laws about inciting hatred and hate propaganda?  I honestly would like to know.

        • nowimnothing

          I do not think it can be quantified that way, but the converse can be. Perhaps you can tell me if there is less hatred in those countries that have stricter laws. If the laws do not reduce the amount of hatred, what is the point? For me I would set a pretty high standard of effectiveness before limiting something as essential to the human race as communication.
          We expose hate and propaganda to the light of day and do not pretend that it does not exist. Under the light of debate and information it can be tracked and exposed. Disgusting speech is best fought with more speech, not less.

          • Navin_Johnson

            Sorry, but you said our laws were the best, so I’m asking you to explain why and it doesn’t seem like you really answered. I ask because I’ve never seen anybody come up with a reasonable argument to explain how allowing the worst kind of hate speech enhances our society or prevents it from falling apart.  For example, we allow hate groups (see Chik-Fil-A story) to distribute unscientific hate propaganda, f/e groups actively promoting faux-science propaganda that says that gays are pedophiles. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how dangerous this can be to an entire segment of our population. In other words, their rights, health, and safety are potentially sacrificed for the free speech “rights” of their tormentors. I use this example because it’s something with our absolutism that we allow, and many other countries would punish. So this is not pretending that hate speech doesn’t exist, in fact it’s quite the opposite, confronting it head on where it does. You ask about less hatred, which is as you mentioned hard to quantify, but what I do know is that in other countries such hate groups aren’t allowed to operate with the ease with which they are in the U.S. 

            Disgusting speech is best fought with more speech, not less.

            And this gets at what I was asking from the beginning.  We’re always told this, but never shown how this is true in practice. How has this made us a better country than Canada, or any number of Western European countries?  I don’t buy it.

          • nowimnothing

            I did not say they were the best, but you are right I am a free speech absolutest. So how does having these hate groups punished improve the quality of life in those countries? Are there less hate groups? Is there less media coverage of hate group actions? Do victimized groups feel safer and less harassed?
            I think that would be pretty hard to quantify given a variety of other factors that play into acceptance of diversity.
            The real problem comes down to where you draw those lines. In the end some government bureaucrat or judge will need to make a decision and that decision has a very real possibility of being arbitrary and malleable. What should be off limits? You mentioned anti-homosexual propaganda, what about anti-religion propaganda? Can Jews not say that Jesus was not the son of God for fear of being imprisoned for their anti-Christian propaganda?
            I think Europe is just starting to see some of the paradoxes they open themselves up to when they take this path.

          • Navin_Johnson

            Well, you said we have “a better definition than most of the World.”

            I’m talking in realities, not slippery slope what-ifs. The Jewish example is just unrealistic, and yes, if somebody is promoting something as dangerous as the anti-gay groups are toward gays, but toward a religious group, then that should be covered as well.

            You still aren’t really showing me the benefits (or if they exist) for free speech absolutism, and yes, even though I don’t have the numbers, I’d feel pretty confident in saying that the U.S. likely has way more hate groups than a place (with stronger hate laws) like Canada, Sweden or wherever.  A lot of these countries have same sex marriage for example, which the U.S. and its poisoned political atmosphere does not. I’m using gay rights as my subject here because it’s been on my mind with all the ‘free speech’ talk related to Chik-Fil-A, of course this applies to any number of groups or kinds of people.

            Regarding your questions on hate speech targeting religious groups, the Canadian definitions look pretty straightforward to me, see section 319 #2 for religious hatred:

            http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/06/15/f-hate-crimes.html

          • nowimnothing

            How do you feel about British Libel Laws:
            http://www.npr.org/2011/07/08/137697232/new-republic-loving-to-loathe-british-libel-law
            It seems hate speech laws could be abused in similar ways. I don’t think my Jewish example was far fetched. Look at the back and forth on issues like this in France with Muslims.
            I don’t think you can place the blame for anti-homosexual marriage on a lack of hate laws. There is much more about our highly religious history and culture compared to Europe.
            Free speech is a kind of intangible benefit, kind of like freedom of movement or freedom of assembly. I think the more impoprtant poitn is what tangible gains does society get from limiting ANY freedom? You always have to weigh those gains against the losses.
            I assume you would draw the line somewhere, maybe like Canada does in that article by providing specific defenses that can be evoked to exempt certain speech even if it is hateful. Myself I would prefer we make that line a bit clearer so we don’t have to have back and forth court cases deciding exactly what is offensive and what is not. 

          • nowimnothing

            It is really hard to compare but: from Southern Poverty Law Center, most prominent U.S. Neo-Nazi group By 2002, the Alliance had 1,400 carefully vetted, dues-paying members. From Wikipedia According to the preliminary version of the annual report of Germany’s interior intelligence service (Verfassungsschutz) for 2010,[57] at the time there were 25,000 right-wing extremists living in Germany,[58] including 5,600 neo-Nazis.[59] 

          • Navin_Johnson

            “Freedom”

            What about the freedom of people to be free to live a life where they’re not demonized by hate propaganda? I sympathize with that freedom more than I sympathize with the freedom to allow the ‘right’ to hate speech at the expense of the ‘rights’ of those adversely affected by it. It’s easy to just talk about freedoms or rights, but in these cases one kind of freedom is simply the freedom to abuse somebody else’s. I still haven’t seen a persuasive argument that defends U.S. levels of absolutism. People need to do better than “slippery slope” especially when other other countries have managed just fine, and many of them with cleaner governments and political systems than ours.

          • nowimnothing

            What about the freedom to read what you want to without a government censor telling you that they have to protect you from dangerous ideas?
            Is there any evidence that the banning of any information has lead to the slowing or elimination of the spread of an idea?I guess I have more faith in humanity being able to judge udeas on their own without someone else stepping in and saying, no you cannot see/read this.
            Take your example of the anti-gay pamphlet. Wouldn’t you want to read that to see what they are thinking and to erect a counter? Eliminating the spread of information does not reduce the number of people that feel that way or even eliminate the spread, see China.

          • Navin_Johnson

             ”pamphlet”

            That was not my example as you know.  I was talking about well organized very large organizations that demonize gays.  Groups that are already designated “hate groups” by the SPLC:

            http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

          • Midas68

             I think this is when Navin stands up in Karate poster and yell “I am a N-Word”

          • Antinous / Moderator

            Disgusting speech is best fought with more speech, not less.

            We have more access to information about fascist groups than ever before and fascism is on the rise. Your statement is an optimistic meme and has no factual basis.

          • Boundegar

            Wow.  Thanks for that, sunshine sparkles.

          • nowimnothing

            I am really surprised to find anti-free speech folks on a blog with ties to the EFF.

          • nowimnothing

            I guess it just comes from being a librarian. Intellectual Freedom, censorship and free speech kind of come with the profession. Speaking of, what about Mein Kampf, should we ban it as hate speech or study it as history? Again I would prefer it on the shelf right next to critical commentary. 

          • http://burntheflag.ca Jardine

            Perhaps you can tell me if there is less hatred in those countries that have stricter laws.

            Canadians doesn’t have to worry about those Westboro Baptist shitheads protesting their funerals since they’re barred from entering. That seems like less hatred in the country.

          • Navin_Johnson

            Mein Kampf is a historical artifact that there’s a context to, so no.  Although, I believe some countries don’t ban the book, but have chosen to ban the act of selling it with the motivation to promote nazism, mostly countries directly affected by Hitler it seems.  Banning it is not the same as going after somebody actively promoting genocide or something today.

          • nowimnothing

            I would think actively promoting violence would fall under certain Supreme Court rulings depending on the clear and present danger test.
            That is very different than something like Westboro where it is strictly the banning of a viewpoint the government decides they do not like. As the Supreme Court stated, if they were just holding signs that said God Bless America, then we would have no problem. Causing offense it so arbitrary. If I don’t have a book in my library that offends you, then I am not doing my job.

          • Antinous / Moderator

            If I don’t have a book in my library that offends you, then I am not doing my job.

            Honestly, that just makes you sound like a rebellious twelve year-old.

          • nowimnothing

            Really? So you don’t think we should be exposed to the widest possible range of viewpoints? You do not think we should continuously challenge our belief system by listening to what what people who feel differently than us believe? That is exercise for the mind. How boring would a library be if you agreed with everything that is in there? Why would you need to use it if it did not tell you something you did not already know?

    • Johnny Farnen

      Agreed, and I am certain Germany’s anti-Nazi laws have even more to do with it.

  • Johann Jaeckel

    Regarding the teddy bear picture, its t-shirt shows a play on words about deportation (in German “Abschiebung”). An “AbschieBaer” is someone who carries out a deportation. Not very cute after all.

  • Guest

    Is this meant to educate me about free speech, or is there another reason for deleting my comment?

    • Antinous / Moderator

      It was in the spam bin, but it also seems likely to hijack the thread, so I’m going to pass on approving it.

      • Guest

        All I am saying is that most supporters of free speech draw a line somewhere, even if they do not readily admit it. Now for some people, being a xenophobe, militant hate group seems not to be outside this line per se, while making fun of certain religious beliefs is. Which is contrary to what I consider sensible. That’s all.

        • nowimnothing

          I will readily admit I draw the line near about the same place the Supreme Court does. For example  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

          • ffabian

            Yeah because the US constitution is the gold standard for human rights!? Works out fine for all those people in Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib or executed in death row. There is a human right to life – can’t use your right for free speech if your dead. Perhaps those silly Europeans with their ban on the death penalty doing it right this time – limits on free speech or not.

  • Ipo

    When people argue against their own right to voice opinion that isn’t normative, in order to forbid others to voice opinion they hate, I  despair.
    You know who else outlawed speech?

    And I agree with nowimnothing, in that the U.S. has a better definition of what free speech means than most of the world.  If you disagree, please speak up and name over half of the world with a better definition and explain how freedom of speech is better with less freedom to speak, while you are still allowed to. 

    But anyhow, this loose group of about 40 yucky people was “actively directed against the constitutional* order and against the idea of ​​cultural diplomacy” (richtet sich gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ord­nung und gegen den Gedanken der Völkerverstandigung).   
    They really were. 
    If that forbidden grouplet of Nazi fucks had their way most of us wouldn’t even be allowed to voice our opinions. 

    Y’all should realize that by German standards the entire scene from freepers to teabaggers would be borderline or fully illegal.  And this is not federal but state law.  The Lower Saxony Ministry for Interior and Sports ruled.
    Their neighbour outlawed the Hells Angels last year.

    That’s convenient, isn’t it?  If Laws could just always be designed to make it easy for government to govern.
    All the wrongheaded fuckers that make life shitty for us, we just make them illegal, or better yet, we could round ‘em up … 

    It’s so twisted and confusing.  First they came for the Nazis, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Nazi.

    • Navin_Johnson

      It’s so twisted and confusing.  First they came for the Nazis, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Nazi.

      It’s funny that you use this considering that propaganda, hate speech, and demonization was one of the ways they managed to work up the citizens into accepting what they were doing. I suppose you could find some kind of moral equivalence here if there’s no universal concept of right or wrong, human rights and so on.

      • nowimnothing

        They also used censorship to make sure their propaganda was the only kind the populace heard.

        • ffabian

          They also tortured and murdered people without a trial. Guess what the USA does and todays Germany doesn’t. Some learn from errors while others believe they can’t do wrong ’cause they’re clearly “best of the world”.  Talking about slippery slopes eh?

      • Ipo

        I wouldn’t bother to look for any moral equivalence here. 
        Martin Niemöller would understand.  Having been a Nazi and all that. 

        Somebody has to decide what speech to suppress.  Who do you want it to be?  The majority?  Old white religious “conservatives”?  Some kind of leaders?  How do you influence what speech is legal?  How do you keep the wrong people from influencing? 
        Two countries over to the east, there’s the worlds largest country, where it’s illegal to promote homosexuality in word or action.  In Soviet Russia morality considers you.

    • http://twitter.com/zing_och zing och

      Fact check: This has nothing to do with state *law*. The ministry / the state executed federal law because those asshats are a criminal organisation after the StGB. 

      • Ipo

        “… the Ministry of the Interior of the State of Lower-Saxony in Germany has banned the organisation “Besseres Hannover”.  
        No, of course they didn’t make up any laws.  You’re right. 
        They decided that the stupid racist bear raising his arm, in one of their anti immigration propaganda flicks, can be interpreted as a Nazi salute says Wikipedia. 
        That would be “use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations” (§ 86a StGB) and with that “Besseres Hannover” were forming a criminal organization (§ 129 StGB).  And according to the § 9 Abs. 1 Satz 1 VereinsG  they use here to ask twitter for censorship, that in turn makes  all sound recordings and images of Xenophobear, as a banned symbol illegal, but not those Nazis’ written words.  Seems legit.    Twenty-three other propaganda crimes possibly relate to this group.  Nobody has been convicted yet, I understand. 
        They, being Nazis, probably deserve far more hardship than they have coming to them.  Germany’s justice system is incredibly lenient from an American point of view. 
        But there should be ‘no’ law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

    • Luther Blissett

      I think that you may have to check the balance:

      That’s convenient, isn’t it? If Laws could just always be designed to make it easy for government to govern.

      No-n-o-noooo, that’s not happening there. First, nobody is changing the law: it is executed. The German constitution protects, at first, human dignity. Hate speech, and racist actions, are violating several fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. However, a lot is tolerated under the law, as free speech is also an fundamental right. Neo-nazi group rallies are most of the time allowed, and protected by the police. And deeming organizations illegal that actively work against this constitution is, in my point of view, part of the societies immune system, but still a step not to be taken lightly. (Which shows in the ongoing discussion about a German neo-nazi party, which actually has MoPs in several state parliaments.) Deeming criminal organizations criminal, as was the case in the drug, arms and human trafficking Hells Angels organizations, has nothing to do whatsoever with “free speech”.

      You also need to understand that German constitution (and German law in general) work very different than the Common Law ruling in many anglophone countries. In Germany, changing the law requires clear majorities in the parliaments, and changing the constitution requires a two-thirds-majorities. Besides, federal law rules above state law. Civil Law, codified and fixed, and it’s common and accepted interpretation are important constants of most continental European countries. And no equivalent to the ‘Federal Constitutional Court’ I know of on this planet has the power and influence like the German, and is as political in its ruling.

  • Steeevyo

    I think my countries laws regarding Nazis and Holocaust denial are entirely out of date. Historically i can understand where this limitation of free speech comes from but Germany is now a normal nation among others (if you look beyond the socks and sandal wearing ways of some of my middle aged countrymen/women).
    Sadly France recently made it illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide so currently there seems to be a European trend towards more limitations on free speech.

    Free speech is the best way to locate and identify idiots and dangeroys people and expose them for their stupidity. No limitation on free speech has ever killed a thought however nasty it may be.

    • paulcarcosa

       And I think in the light of the NSU killing spree you are wrong.

      • Ipo

         I recently read on spiegel.de that the man getting them their government issue HK P2000 service pistol was on the payroll of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz). 
        Those three shot 13 people with it in seven years, including themselves. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/OMHO6ER5QJE3SIZ35VAXIRCLYM Stephan

        You misread my post. Try to read carefully again.

        • paulcarcosa

           Done. You’re still wrong.

  • paulcarcosa

    It is really hard to compare but: from Southern Poverty Law Center, most prominent U.S. Neo-Nazi group By 2002, the Alliance had 1,400 carefully vetted, dues-paying members. From Wikipedia According to the preliminary version of the annual report of Germany’s interior intelligence service (Verfassungsschutz) for 2010,[57] at the time there were 25,000 right-wing extremists living in Germany,[58] including 5,600 neo-Nazis.[59]

    The 25.000 is an estimate to each and everyone with a radical right wing agenda. I’m pretty confident that by the Verfassungschutz’ standards large parts of the tea party would count as well.

    • Navin_Johnson

      And this:

      Currently, there are 1,018 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others.And their numbers are growing.

      Since 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 69 percent. This surge has been fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president.

      These factors also are feeding a powerful resurgence of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, which in the 1990s led to a string of domestic terrorist plots, including the Oklahoma City bombing.The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, grew by 755 percent in the first three years of the Obama administration – from 149 at the end of 2008 to 1,274 in 2011.

      This growth in extremism has been aided by mainstream media figures and politicians who have used their platforms to legitimize false propaganda about immigrants and other minorities and spread the kind of paranoid conspiracy theories on which militia groups thrive.

      http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism

      • nowimnothing

        Just curious how you feel about TSA x-ray scanners? In what tangible way would the U.S. have a better government/democracy by eliminating them?

        • Navin_Johnson

          I don’t understand the relevance of your question. I mean that it in good faith too. 

  • sigdrifa

    First of all, thank you Navin_Johnson for talking sense.
    As for all of you free speech extremists, you all sound so damn self-righteous that I’m wondering if you have any idea what it’s like to be on the receiving end of hate speech. I think that every single member of a minority has a right to live without fear, and that right is more important than the right to say whatever you want. And if you really think that allowing hate inciting speech helps to reduce it, then I don’t know what planet you spent your life on. Hate inciting speech does just that: Incites hate. Which in turn is often followed by violence. 

    I am a firm believer in “One person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins”.

    In the U.S., you have homophobes and religious nut jobs in politics and in a position of power, where they can create laws that restrict the rights of minorities and people with different political views. In Germany, these people (as in this case, the neo-nazi group) will never be part of the law-creating body. That is another reason why I prefer our way.

    I guess the main difference between Europe and the U.S. is that you are such a young nation. You didn’t have anywhere near as much time to make mistakes and learn from them as we’ve had.

    • paulcarcosa

      In Germany, these people (as in this case, the neo-nazi group) will never be part of the law-creating body. 
      That isn’t entirely correct, I’m afraid. In Germany’s voting system is a bit complicated, but basically it is proportional. Every party that gets more than 5% of total votes is in. The NPD has entered some state parliaments. They are opposition and mostly dysfunctional, though.

      There is a discussion to ban the NPD party because of its ties with militant neo nazis.

      • sigdrifa

        Ok, point taken. But as long as they are legally considered a legitimate political party there is nothing that can be done about that. And failures of previous attempts at banning the party were due to some pretty big mistakes the Verfassungsschutz has made, not due to a flaw in our incitement to hate laws.

    • nowimnothing

      I am a firm believer in “One person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins”.I am too, but there is a choice element involved when someone is offended by something and it is not always obvious where someone else will make the choice to be offended beforehand. That is why it is called a chilling effect on speech.
      For example should we be able to criticize female circumcision even if offends the people who hold it as sacred? What about the hijab? Piss Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ ? Heather has two Mommies?
      I agree people should live without fear, but to me that fear is rooted in physical violence. Harassment law can also be used in some cases. Again we are talking about clear and present danger.

      • Navin_Johnson

        Try to show some good faith, those aren’t apt examples and are covered by laws like Canada’s (for example). 

        Still waiting on a real argument that explains how the U.S.’ free speech absolutism has helped it have a better government/democracy than some of the other countries with stricter hate laws: Canada, Sweden etc etc.

        • nowimnothing

          Yeah, based on this
          http://www.freedomtoread.ca/censorship_in_canada/censor09.asp
          Canada does not sound so inviting. Why should I have to defend my private reading choices in a court of law? I could be doing research on hate speech or obscenity. How can I judge something if the government does not allow me to read it?

          Has the lack of free speech made China have a better government?

          Others must find free speech important as it is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right not to be offended is strangely absent…

          • Navin_Johnson

            Has the lack of free speech made China have a better government?

            That’s a false choice.  We’re not even talking about a middle ground between China and U.S., we’re talking about some restrictions that are just slightly more strict than what we have in the U.S.

            I expected to see something in that Canada link, but I don’t. If somebody had their private books snatched please let us know. The laws require intent to incite hatred which you obviously would not be doing by simply researching something.

            Others must find free speech important as it is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right not to be offended is strangely absent…

            Actually in modern declarations it is absolutely included and includes hate speech, incitement etc.  

            This is also not 1948 or the 18th century for that matter.

        • nowimnothing

          Do you deny that information is powerful? Obviously not since you state how harmful it can be. Telling me I cannot read something (by extension think something) because of a decision made by someone who was able to read and think it without harm seems the ultimate encroachment on my mind and an insult to my intelligence.

          Even this debate we are having here, would it have been better if one or the other of us had been able to delete the other’s posts so no one could read them? Or is it better for understanding and cooperation that we listen to what people say (even if we disagree) in order to understand them better and to construct persuasive counter-arguments?

      • Antinous / Moderator

        I agree people should live without fear, but to me that fear is rooted in physical violence. Harassment law can also be used in some cases. Again we are talking about clear and present danger.

        Neo-nazis are killing people. LGBT people are killed or injured every day of the week. If you think that there isn’t a clear and present danger, you’re looking through the lenses of your own privilege.

        • Navin_Johnson

          And then there’s suicides, and the mental and physical stress that goes along with living in a toxic environment where you’re constantly demonized. Studies have shown these factors have real negative impacts on health and well-being which I’m sure most gay people already know. Same goes for other marginalized groups as well.

    • Ipo

      I guess the main difference between Europe and the U.S. is that you are such a young nation. You didn’t have anywhere near as much time to make mistakes and learn from them as we’ve had. 
      The USA was 89 years old when the New York Times  was writing:
      The smaller States of the confederation merely followed their leaders; and the people at large supported the war from a vague notion that it might lead to grand results in the way of German unity, _____ that unfulfilled dream of many centuries.

  • sigdrifa

    Here’s another thought: The defenders of totally free speech always use the argument that when you start censoring there’s no knowing of where it will end, and the question of where to draw the line, etc. But that works the other way around, too. Let’s go to extremes here (as free speech defenders tend to do): How about, for example, child porn? Do you want to allow distribution of that, too, if someone is just passing it around and didn’t create it? Should that, in your opinion, fall under the protection of free speech as well? So, where do you draw the line?

    • nowimnothing

      Again I would draw the line about where the US Supreme Court has. The only major beef I have with it is the Miller test for obscenity which harkens back to our puritanical roots. Otherwise some clear and present danger, shouting fire in a theater, rallying a mob to lynch someone etc.
      As for child porn, I am fine with most of the current law because it is a representation and evidence of an actual physical crime. It is just when it gets into animation that it gets absurd. For example    =>0  where 0 is under 18 years old. Now should I be arrested for drawing child porn? The scientific link between fiction promoting actual crimes is inconclusive at best. See the studies on video game violence.

  • nowimnothing

    The anti-free speech idea really rests on the idea that some ideas are too dangerous for people in general. Even if that is true and we as a species cannot handle some ideas without going all homicidal and rapey, we would still be relying on other people to make those decisions for us.
    I don’t think it is a slippery slope argument when we can see plenty of examples both in the modern and historical world where governments have abused these kinds of powers.
    In the U.S. that means trusting a government that we cannot always trust to follow their own laws much less those of the Geneva Convention when dealing with prisoners of war (sorry, enemy combatants.) We can see the value of free, unfettered communications most recently in the uprisings across the middle east.
    Information is power and that is why it is so valuable and why we should look very carefully and place many safeguards before giving up control of  that power to those who also have all the money and weapons.
    I think Wesboro is a good example. They are not inciting violence, they are assembling peacefully and if their signs carried a different message, we would not have a problem with them. But since they are free to express their views, we can analyze and tear apart those views. I think they shed a light on a very real problem within U.S. culture as far as discrimination. Now more mainstream Christians take pains to move themselves away from Westboro type statements. Pat Robertson is called out when he says similar things like about Katrina being punishment from God. I do think this open dialog allows us to work through these issues as a culture rather than sweeping them under the rug and pretending they do not exist.

    • Navin_Johnson

       According to SPLC the number of hate groups has increased by 69%.  Your argument about fighting speech with speech doesn’t seem to hold water.

      http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism

    • Antinous / Moderator

      I think Wesboro is a good example. They are not inciting violence, they are assembling peacefully

      That’s bullshit. They’ve called for gay people to be executed.

      • Navin_Johnson

        And their actions, particularly at funerals come very close to something more like personal harassment than actual protest imho.