The JDL (I hate them, those bastards)

[General X]

Yes, its the good old Jewish Defense League, giving Jews everywhere a bad name, and helping terrorists to achieve their goal of making Jews and Israelis look bad in front of the media. Terrific. Jews are their own worst enemy sometimes. do you honestly believe that the JDL is helping the Israeli cause? I don't.

[Oh Jerusalem]

What did they do (this time)?

[L@mplighterM]

I don’t have anything against them and I’ve gotten a lot of interesting reading material from their site.

[General X]

What I have against them is that they are terrorists. They attempted to blow up a mosque months ago, and now they are sending threats to people known for their anti-Israel feelings. All they are doing is making Jews look bad, and giving other terrorists some justification. "Oh look, the jews are doing it too" they can say. The JDL would serve a better purpose if it SPOKE out strongly, yet legally, against the Palistinean terrorists. Such as providing information proving them to be terrorists, and info showing Arafat as their terrorist leader. It would be more beneficial to the Jewish community IMO. I like that they are supporting Israel's cause, but I would immediately condemn any attack they did on innocent Moslims. Not only would I condemn it, but I would continue to speak against it, as I am now speaking against their attempted attempt (too many of the word attempt lol )Do u think so as well?

[L@mplighterM]

They attempted to blow up a mosque months ago, and now they are sending threats to people known for their anti-Israel feelings.

A couple of people were charged with conspiring to blow up a mosque they never attempted to blow up anything. Further there hasn’t been a conviction.

[Oh Jerusalem]

I'll just state for the record here that I have never given a penny to the JDL and avoid doing so like the plague.

It was one thing to verbally and psycologically harrass Russian diplomats in NY in the 60's and 70's but the rest just categorizes them as terrorists.

Pity, because much (but far from all) of what Meir Kahane said turned out to be right on the money.

[L@mplighterM]

I still say that I?ve gotten a lot of information from them and I haven?t supported them financially. I don?t think they should be considered terrorists. As far as I know if the organization was considered a terrorist organization it would be shut down.

[muslim4israel2]

If this group of Jews is gonna level a mosque, then Israel should expect someone to level a Synagogue.

Eye for an eye is the theory in that damned neck of the world.

[L@mplighterM]

Do you know how to read a map? There you go showing your ignorance again.
If a Jew spits on the sidewalk in Britain you blow up Mosque in Israel.

On one hand it?s a NO NO to touch anything holy but it?s all right to get even.
I told you that you were as dumber than my poodle.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by muslim4israel2
If this group of Jews is gonna level a mosque, then Israel should expect someone to level a Synagogue.

Eye for an eye is the theory in that damned neck of the world.

Looks like it's the law in your neck of the woods, too!

[raven]

The JDL are Jews that say "OH NO..YOU WONT". This makes all people verrry verrrry uncomfortable. The world is used to killing us without much of a fight, then trashing us cause we werent violent in response. Now they are trashing us IF we fight back the EXACT same way others do. Whats good for the goose is good for the gandar.

ONE...ONE...Mosques is in jepardy and how fast did they go after and jail Rubin? How much will they "pile on" Rubin? Will most of it be true or just "making stuff up" about him?

Just how many Shuls have been defaced and destroyed? Just how many Cemetaries have been defaced? Most of the time the so called Authorites...just cant...(oh my goodness- what a shame) cant find the perpetrators. They dont INTEND to find the perpetrators.


I wonder what part of "Never Again" the world doesnt get?

[raven]

Am I mistaken, or was the confiction of the murderer of Meir Kahane OVERTURNED? I think that it just was. WHat a surprise. Im shocked.

Im not a member of Kahanes Organization. BUT--- Was he RIGHT? or Was he RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!! We knew he was.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by raven
I wonder what part of "Never Again" the world doesnt get?

The part about two wrongs don't make a right.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by raven
Im not a member of Kahanes Organization. BUT--- Was he RIGHT? or Was he RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!! We knew he was.

If you're not a member, then who is "we"?

[muslim4israel2]

Nah, the laws in the EU are civilized, then theres Israel.

[L@mplighterM]

Israel judicial system is one of the finest in the world. Their leniency towards the Palestinians has been/is remarkable.

[muslim4israel2]

Fair enough.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by muslim4israel2
Nah, the laws in the EU are civilized, then theres Israel.

Yes. Of course. Please enlighten us with your wit and wisdom as to which laws you're referring to? I'm sure you've got them written down in your little notebook in front of you.

While you're at it, care to comment on the comparison of law and government between Israel and, oh, I don't know, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Iran, Iraq and even the cute little Emerate fifedomes?

[muslim4israel2]

I live in the EU-I'm not aware of the integrals of the Arab legal systems-sure its not as bad as your making out. Loads of Westerners live in the UAE.

[aid]

The JDL would be useful if it played the role of a Jewish militia protecting Jewish meetings, marches, etc. for example.

Terrorist acts are only detrimental to Jews. What purpose does it serve to blow up a mosque? This is crazy.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by muslim4israel2
I live in the EU-I'm not aware of the integrals of the Arab legal systems-sure its not as bad as your making out. Loads of Westerners live in the UAE.

They do, because they hope to make money so they are willing to put up with some nonsense. I spoke to a woman last week who had recently returned from a teaching contract there. It wasn't so good as she hoped, but it was endurable. Then again, she didn't have the pleasure of interacting with the legal system, which is often a nightmare for Westerners.

I see here that Dubai is considered the most liberal of the Arab emirates.

The Straits Times
Sunday, March 31, 2002

Dubai - The highest court here has ruled that a husband
has the right to beat his wife to discipline her, but she
in turn has the right to divorce should she suffer any
injury.

The court in the most liberal of the seven states that
make up the United Arab Emirates said beating of a wife
was permissible provided it was not 'so severe as to
damage her bones or deform her body', the Gulf News daily
reported yesterday.

A wife, however, has the right to ask her husband for a
divorce 'if he injures her, either by word or action'.

...
(See the article reposted at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Muslim-terrorism-1704.20020331%40news.mantra.com&output=gplain )

I think most of the civilized world does not agree that wife-beating, even "mild," should be sanctioned, but in Dubai it's clearly different. On the other hand, I suppose one should be grateful that a divorce is possible if there is lasting injury. I see no mention of a criminal penalty for harm caused by wife-beating. And as noted, this is the most liberal Arab emirate.

[muslim4israel2]

When did Jeremy Paxman join this forum? :D

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by aid
The JDL would be useful if it played the role of a Jewish militia protecting Jewish meetings, marches, etc. for example.

Terrorist acts are only detrimental to Jews. What purpose does it serve to blow up a mosque? This is crazy.

Two people are arraigned on charges for conspiring to blow up a mosque. How do you know the allegations are true? Please point me to information that show they were convicted of blowing up a mosque.

This leads me to other questions:

Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west?

Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events.

Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?

The other day I looked at a news site in Europe. There was a young man that wore a small Star of David on his jacket and he was asked to remove it because it was provocative.

[L@mplighterM]

Dubai - The highest court here has ruled that a husband
has the right to beat his wife to discipline her, but she
in turn has the right to divorce should she suffer any
injury.

What do you think that they do to children in that neck of the woods?

They suffer from beatings, genocide from the law and gross sexual abuse.

What legal recourse do they have? NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[aid]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM


Two people are arraigned on charges for conspiring to blow up a mosque. How do you know the allegations are true? Please point me to information that show they were convicted of blowing up a mosque.

This leads me to other questions:

Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west?

Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events.

Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?

The other day I looked at a news site in Europe. There was a young man that wore a small Star of David on his jacket and he was asked to remove it because it was provocative.

I don't know if it's tue. I do know that terrorist acts against non-combatants are counterproductve.

If it were up to me, I would charge all these mosques with terrorist incitement.

Demonstrations of neo-nazis - this is a sticky point in the US political system. This is where the JDL could be useful - have a counter-demonstration with the protection of a few tough guys.

Right now, the JDL would be come very handy in France, protecting Jews, not attacking Arabs.

This is all I am saying.

[A-Palestinian]

Apart from excercising my right to freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers garuanteed, and which L@mpLighter now finds himself questioning, I also enter this thread to do L@mpLighter, and any other parties involved, a favour, by Addressing his Questioning of Freedom.

--------------------------------------------------

"Two people are arraigned on charges for conspiring to blow up a mosque. How do you know the allegations are true? Please point me to information that show they were convicted of blowing up a mosque. "

Sure: (The attempt was in LA).

-- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-121301jdl.story
-- http://www.jewsweek.com/society/190.htm

Also, perhaps you would care to take a look at the Institution that actually arrested them:

-- www.fbi.gov

"Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west? "

In other words: Should the (a) government tax you if they dont like what you say?

"Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events. "

Lest you forget, Skinheads pay their taxes too. More to the point however, is this - Meet the US Constitution, Ammendment number 1:

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.

It does not say (and rightly so), that if you do not particularly like the swastika & shaved head combo, that they be banned.

"Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?"

Should you be allowed to ask this?

-----------------------------------------------------

It is quite prudent, to never let any Questioning of freedom go about unchallenged. This is why I took the liberty of addressing L@mpLighter's questions/statements. Other statements made on this board can at often times be flatly wrong, but they are simply concretes, which can easily be debunked upon serious scrutiny. His questions however pertained to an actual Fundamental premise - Mans' freedom.

L@mpLighter certainly isn't the first person to question freedom however. Others have beat him to it. Hitler and Saddam come to mind. The former managed to strip away a certain peoples' freedoms, and then proceeded to slaughter 6 million innocents, while the latter's record is still in the making.

Ironically however, L@mpLighter is utterly blind to the Light from the L@mp which Lady Liberty holds up. This light is Freedom - It was the product of the rational thinking from the men of the Enlightenment, recognised, framed, and implemented by the Founding Fathers, and now etched in stone within the latest flowering of Western Civilisation - The United States of America.

[aid]

"In other words: Should the (a) government tax you if they dont like what you say?"

No, the question is different.

Should government tolerate direct incitement to violence and terrorism, whatever is the source.

Freedom of expression does not include incitement to kill. These are two different things.

Long before the first attack on the WTC, for example, "shekh" Abdul Rachman (the one in Santa Claus hat) was doing just that.

Had he been prosecuted before the first WTC atack, it would not have happened, along with 9/11.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Apart from excercising my right to freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers garuanteed, and which L@mpLighter now finds himself questioning, I also enter this thread to do L@mpLighter, and any other parties involved, a favour, by Addressing his Questioning of Freedom.

--------------------------------------------------

"Two people are arraigned on charges for conspiring to blow up a mosque. How do you know the allegations are true? Please point me to information that show they were convicted of blowing up a mosque. "

Sure: (The attempt was in LA).

-- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-121301jdl.story
-- http://www.jewsweek.com/society/190.htm






Also, perhaps you would care to take a look at the Institution that actually arrested them:

-- www.fbi.gov

"Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west? "

In other words: Should the (a) government tax you if they dont like what you say?

"Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events. "

Lest you forget, Skinheads pay their taxes too. More to the point however, is this - Meet the US Constitution, Ammendment number 1:

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.

It does not say (and rightly so), that if you do not particularly like the swastika & shaved head combo, that they be banned.

"Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?"

Should you be allowed to ask this?

-----------------------------------------------------

It is quite prudent, to never let any Questioning of freedom go about unchallenged. This is why I took the liberty of addressing L@mpLighter's questions/statements. Other statements made on this board can at often times be flatly wrong, but they are simply concretes, which can easily be debunked upon serious scrutiny. His questions however pertained to an actual Fundamental premise - Mans' freedom.

L@mpLighter certainly isn't the first person to question freedom however. Others have beat him to it. Hitler and Saddam come to mind. The former managed to strip away a certain peoples' freedoms, and then proceeded to slaughter 6 million innocents, while the latter's record is still in the making.

Ironically however, L@mpLighter is utterly blind to the Light from the L@mp which Lady Liberty holds up. This light is Freedom - It was the product of the rational thinking from the men of the Enlightenment, recognised, framed, and implemented by the Founding Fathers, and now etched in stone within the latest flowering of Western Civilisation - The United States of America.

The Constitution of the United States isn’t etched in stone. There have been amendments made during the course of time. This is a process that changes the document but still leaves peoples rights in place.

If it was the will of the people there could be changes made. Further more and more countries are developing hate laws. As a matter of fact individuals have/are being charged with hate crimes in the US.
There’s also incitement to commit hate crimes etc.
Read your own LINK there was no attempt to blow up anything.

[A-Palestinian]

L@mpLighter says:
"The Constitution of the United States isn’t etched in stone. "

But then says:
"This is a process that changes the document but still leaves peoples rights in place . " (Bold Mine).

It changes but still "leaves peoples rights in place"? Obviously, an outright contradiction. As standing, your second statement outright contradicts your first.

The whole reason, it is called a "Constitution", is because certain fundamentals cannot be changed. What is indeed etched in stone is the Bill of Rights - included in the US constitution as the Prelude.

"If it was the will of the people there could be changes made. "

False . It is because of this above flawed premise, that you thus make flawed concrete conclusions, like your first paragraph. Actually, the US in NOT a Democracy - it is a Republic. There is a *very* stark difference between the two. In more detail, the US is a Constitutionaly Limited Republic.

-- In a Democracy, the will of the people is the law. Thus, if 9 out of 10 people vote to kill the tenth, then it is *legal*.
(Rule of the people).

-- In a CLR however, if 9 out of 10 people vote to kill the tenth, is it *illegal*, because the Constitution would forbid it. (Rule of Fundamentals).

Nazi Germany was a Democracy. Hitler was Voted into power. The US is not.

So yes the Fundamentals of our freedom are indeed etched in stone.

"Further more and more countries are developing hate laws. "

So what? What bearing does this have on the points I addressed for you in your original post? (Hate crime laws are actually un-constitutional, but thats not relavant here). As it stands, this statement is a Non-Sequitor.

"As a matter of fact individuals have/are being charged with hate crimes in the US. "

No one is denying racist crimes are comminted, but again, thats a Non-Sequitor.

"There’s also incitement to commit hate crimes etc. "

Yet again, it is not being denied. Non-Sequitor.

"Read your own LINK there was no attempt to blow up anything. "

Yes. And the Pope isn't Catholic.

On a final note :

-- Do not confuse electing Leaders with electing Laws. In a Democracy, both are allowed. In a Republic, just the former.

-- Your current post is replete with Non-Sequitors. (Irrelevancies). You have made no mention of your own statements in your prior post, which I pointed out as wrong and dangerous. Either correct them, or retract them. Ignoring them wont make them go away.

[muslim4israel2]

Its unlikely that an Israeli would contradict himself. :D

[L@mplighterM]

The volatile chairman of the militant Jewish Defense League and another of the group's top officials faced federal charges Wednesday of plotting to blow up a Los Angeles area mosque and an office of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista).


There's a segment from the link that you posted. Being charged is somewhat different than blowing up anything.

My origional Post:
Should mosques in the US be allowed tax free status and at the same time be allowed to purvey anti-Semitism or hatred against the west?

Should neo-nazis or skinheads be allowed to hold demonstrations or marches? The police (paid for by taxpayers) are always there to police these events.

Should free speech and freedom of assembly be guarded under the Constitution under any circumstances?


I think that you?ll find that there?s NOT ABSELUTE FREE SPEECH IN THE US.
So you?re mistaken if you feel that the constitution allows that. Don?t try to misinterpret my post all I was suggesting that the constitution should be applied unilaterally to all the citizens.

Interpretation is difficult at its best and perhaps some points should be interpreted by the Supreme Court and effects become an amendment.

As far as being etched in stone I meant that the interpretation isn?t etched in stone and that in turn means that the constitution isn?t etched in stone because it?s subject to different interpretations.

[L@mplighterM]

I think that you?ll find that there?s NOT ABSELUTE FREE SPEECH IN THE US.
So you?re mistaken if you feel that the constitution allows that. Don?t try to misinterpret my post all I was suggesting that the constitution should be applied unilaterally to all the citizens.

Interpretation is difficult at its best and perhaps some points should/could be interpreted by the Supreme Court and/or future Supreme Courts and effects become an amendment.

As far as being etched in stone I meant that the interpretation isn?t etched in stone and that in turn means that the constitution isn?t etched in stone because it?s subject to different interpretations.


Further heres a segment from your link:

The volatile chairman of the militant Jewish Defense League and another of the group's top officials faced federal charges Wednesday of plotting to blow up a Los Angeles area mosque


There has been no conviction.

[General X]

Free Speech? I thought this thread was about the JDL... :rolleyes: well all threads get somehwat off topic.
I think... that free speech encouraging acts of inhumanity or racist violence against a certain people (or person) should not be 'free'. I think there should be a degree of censorship to prevent completely irrational statements from being said. This, of course is open to interpretation. What is that degree? Well maybe that degree should go to the extent of censoring people who constantly spread racist lies, without justification. Such as saying, "Jews use Arab blood in their pastries on Purim, known as Macintoshin". A person should be able to say that within the confines of his home, but to make a public statment in the media should be forbidden IMO. That's my opinion, good luck changing it, it'll be a waste of time. Nevertheless, enlighten me as to what your opposition to this is... :rolleyes:

[L@mplighterM]

PREAMBLE
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The above is a preamble to the Constitution and is/should be considered in combination with the articles before making interpretations.

So in effect wherever understanding/opinions/imagination/interpretation is a factor in making decisions regarding challenges and/interpretations of the afore mentioned document one could derive at any opinion.

Therefore whilst the original wording of the Constitution are etched in stone it really becomes moot if an interpretation is made from those words that in fact differ from the intent of the draftees.

[L@mplighterM]

I agree with you General X and changing the current allowance governing free speech is far off in the future.

[A-Palestinian]

L@mpLighter said:

"Being charged is somewhat different than blowing up anything. "

Of course it is. Why are you stating the obvious?

"As far as being etched in stone I meant that the interpretation isn?t etched in stone and that in turn means that the constitution isn?t etched in stone because it?s subject to different interpretations. " (Bold mine).

False. The reason why it is NOT 'subject to interpretation' is precisely why its called a "Constituion ", not a "law ". I explained that to you in my previous post. Did you actually READ it?

"I think that you?ll find that there?s NOT ABSELUTE FREE SPEECH IN THE US.
So you?re mistaken if you feel that the constitution allows that. "

Straw Man, and Non-Sequitor.

"The above is a preamble to the Constitution and is/should be considered in combination with the articles before making interpretations.

So in effect wherever understanding/opinions/imagination/interpretation is a factor in making decisions regarding challenges and/interpretations of the afore mentioned document one could derive at any opinion.

Therefore whilst the original wording of the Constitution are etched in stone it really becomes moot if an interpretation is made from those words that in fact differ from the intent of the draftees . " (Bold Mine).

Oh my, yes. This can be a problem. Thankfully, the solution, is to LEARN ENGLISH.

---------------------------------------------------------

-- Congratulations. You just lost all credibility.

[L@mplighterM]

False. The reason why it is NOT 'subject to interpretation' is precisely why its called a "Constituion ", not a "law ". I explained that to you in my previous post. Did you actually READ it?

I never refered to the Constitution as being the Law.

Who are you kidding?

Written judgments, contracts and even the ‘Constitution’ is subject to interpretations.

[A-Palestinian]

General-X

"Nevertheless, enlighten me as to what your opposition to this is... :rolleyes: "

Before you can understand this better, you must differentiate between:

1) Threats
2) Free Speech.

The first ammendment covers the second.

-- Threats are not covered under the consititution, because they are direct and explicit statements with the intention of comitting violence.

Example: "I am going to kill you tomorrow", is a Threat, which thereby can and will mandate my arrest. (And rightly so).

Furthermore, a threat will contain at least one Pronoun. This is why, the phrase "Kill all Jews", (racist language) is covered under the constitution, (and rightly so), while the phrase "We will kill all Jews" or "All you Jews are going to die" become Threats.

So do realise, that there is a very fine line. Racist language, as sickening as it is, Should Not be censored, and the right to speak hatefull language is (and rightly so), ganruanteed by the Constitution.

On a final note: -- Realise, that All racist threats are "racist/hatefull language", but the converse it NOT true. (i.e, NOT all "racist/hatefull language" are racist threats.) Therefore, by itself, racist language should be, and is allowed. It is only once they become threats that they be dis-allowed.

-----------------------------------------------------

L@mpLighter:

"False. The reason why it is NOT 'subject to interpretation' is precisely why its called a "Constituion ", not a "law ". I explained that to you in my previous post. Did you actually READ it?

I never refered to the Constitution as being the Law.

Who are you kidding?

Written judgments, contracts and even the ‘Constitution’ is subject to interpretations. "

Oh yes. Perhaps the Constitution is actually the embodiment of Communist Manifesto. (Well, all 51% of us think so.)

L@mpLighter, your nitpicking and putting up of Straw Men incapacitate you from having an argument. Since you are excellent at putting up strawmen, I suggest you get a job at a farm.

- Goodbye.

[ibrodsky]

The self-anointed arbiter of proper argumentation has spoken!

[General X]

good one ibrodsky ^^
First of all, I said that racist lies shouldn't be allowed to be spread by media publicity. Thank you though, for arguing and wasting your time writing something totally irrelevant to what I said, it was rather amusing :)

[ibrodsky]

General X:

To answer your original post... with all of the anti-semitic attacks going on today in France, Germany, the UK, and (most recently) a pogrom in the Ukraine, I hardly think the JDL is the main problem.

Actually, the JDL's Web site is tame compared to many pro-Palestinian sites.

My point is not to defend the JDL -- they have a history of racism and violence -- but I don't see how anyone could get worked up about them right now given what's going on.

Actually, this would be a good time to turn the JDL into a genuine Jewish Defense League concerned exclusively with defending Jews from physical attacks around the world.

[A-Palestinian]

"First of all, I said that racist lies shouldn't be allowed to be spread by media publicity. "

Yes you did. And I said they should. Hmm, lets see what your rebuttal is:

"Thank you though, for arguing and wasting your time writing something totally irrelevant to what I said, it was rather amusing "

Lovely.

I think it would be best to follow Ibrodsky's method of argument: If one disagrees, then one must give the other the finger.

[General X]

Originally posted by General X
good one ibrodsky ^^
First of all, I said that racist lies shouldn't be allowed to be spread by media publicity. Thank you though, for arguing and wasting your time writing something totally irrelevant to what I said, it was rather amusing :)
WEll... Im not really getting 'worked up' about it, but I dislike them if they use terror as a weapon. Yes, there should be a JDL, but not using terrorism or it would be counterproductive, no?

[General X]

In response to A-Palistinean, I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. Let me rephrase: Racist lies should not be allowed to be spread by state-sponsored or state-owned media networks. If every time you picked up a newspaper, there were articles with complete lies, then there would be chaos. You wouldn't know truth from lies, unless you had prior knowledge. We shouldn't let that happen; we should be proactive, -not- reactive. I am referring in part to an article in the Saudi Arabian news that said Jews use Arab blood in Purim pastries. And well that wasn't really the point of this thread, but okay...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26802

For some reason, someone who says Nazi Germany was a democracy, I just can't take what they say seriously. He may have been voted in, but only because he shut out the opposition with violence and false propaganda. Part of the propaganda suggested that Jews were the sole cause for Germany's economic problems.

[A-Palestinian]

"Let me rephrase: Racist lies should not be allowed to be spread by state-sponsored or state-owned media networks. "

I agree with that, because State-Owned Media shouldnt exist in the first place.

But if individuals, or companies (a group of individuals) wants to spread racism, then it is their constitutional right to do so, and thus, they are allowed to.

"You wouldn't know truth from lies, unless you had prior knowledge. "

People arent sheep.

As for your quote on Saudi Arabia, that country is no where near a free State, and their Media is State-owned. Therefore, I am not surprised by their anti-Jewry.

"For some reason, someone who says Nazi Germany was a democracy, I just can't take what they say seriously. He may have been voted in, but only because he shut out the opposition with violence and false propaganda. "

Im sorry, but Hitler was pretty much voted into office, because Germany was a Democracy. (Please read my earlier post on Democracies, and Republics). Hitler could not/did not shut off the opposition until after he was in office. Not before.

[General X]

Technically, you may be correct about Germany being a democracy. I still think there is a better word for it. I won't look into it anyway. Maybe it was corrupt and rigged elections.

people arent sheep
It sure seems like the Arabs are, watching their Al-Jazeera. Hell, they don't even believe Osama's tapes are real. They think that the US made them. They even think that Israel coordinated and carried out the 9/11 attacks. They believe everything they see on their biased media, and don't believe the western media. 69% of Saudis hate the US. That's a pretty large percent, and most are influenced by lies in the media. I'm telling you, whenever you show them proof, they argue that the big bad technological United States made a fake tape. Crazy, just crazy.

[A-Palestinian]

"people arent sheep
It sure seems like the Arabs are, watching their Al-Jazeera. Hell, they don't even believe Osama's tapes are real. They think that the US made them. They even think that Israel coordinated and carried out the 9/11 attacks. They believe everything they see on their biased media, and don't believe the western media. 69% of Saudis hate the US. That's a pretty large percent, and most are influenced by lies in the media. I'm telling you, whenever you show them proof, they argue that the big bad technological United States made a fake tape. Crazy, just crazy ."

How is this relavent to the topic of Free Speech?

[raven]

NO...Im not a member of the JDL...the We...are people that got reports on the TV or read in Newpapers what Kahane said. He said...among other things...that the Pals/Arabs DONT WANT PEACE...and want to kill us. HELLOOOOO. Turn on the TV with even the biased CNN. Case closed.

Yes..the JDL started off as a protection society or sorts when Yeshiva Boys attempted to come and go from school and the other people in the neighborhood...which will remain nameless ....G-d forbid I say who they are...attacked...and robbed these peace loving students without provacation. Later they were the ones that spearheaded support for the imprisioned Russian Jews. From time to time, they appear in the US and fuction as protection for Jews at Demonstrations and Meetings...We have to be careful they dont "pile on" and "make stuff up" about Rubin.

People are reverting to type. Wanna look at FRANCE? If it comes here...Im NOT sitting around and hiding. Will YOU? OR will you fight back. The time for educating and asking people not to murder us is OVER....or we havent learned anything.

[McSceptic]

I don't see how planning to blow up mosques would advance that cause.

The JDL is on the FBI's watch list, which means they suspect it could be a threat to other Americans.

[Mediocrates]

For every 100 raving-let's-kill-them-all pro Palestinian agitprop websites touting "peace" there's a handful of Arutz 7, Gamla, Kahane or Women in Green. Yet THEY'RE the extremists. The JDL in the US is rather harmless as opposed to Israel where it extends into the legitimate political fabric itself so putting it on a watchlist is a little like smurfing my email for keywords like "bomb" "suicide" "al-Aqsa" and the like. Organizations like the JDL are very valuable because they steer attention away from the people trying to get real things done.

[raven]

Medio: EXACTLY. They were SELECTED OUT especially to put on the watchlist. Comparing the American JDL to almost any other REAL extremeist group is rediculous. (notice people for some reason the society has just NEVER gotton a handle on the Neo Nazis or the Klan or the various Arab Groups sending Terrorist Money and Training here in the US) The FBI went after Rubin purposely, first cause he is a Jew that screams NO. This is not expected or allowed by the wider society. This is a definate no no for the Alpha Group here.

Did he FINALLY crack and decide to show these people just how it feels? Maybe. But get ready for him to be OVERCHARGED. They will "pile on" and "make up stuff". The society WANTS to have a Jewish so called "extremist" so that it can be used to "shut us up".

If you dont believe me watch how the media construts a "parallel Holocaust" for the Pals. This is what they have been trying to do for years. It works also to shut us up about that subject.