Racist banner hung on Market Street B...

Racist banner hung on Market Street Bridge

There are 63 comments on the Times Leader story from Apr 8, 2008, titled Racist banner hung on Market Street Bridge. In it, Times Leader reports that:

“Within the last two months, there seems to be an issue of making themselves known”

The banner on the Market Street Bridge, which promotes the Keystone State Skinheads organization, reads, "Preserve Our Heritage," on a white bed sheet with black spray paint. via Times Leader

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Times Leader.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
jackie

Tobyhanna, PA

#1 Apr 22, 2008
That is ridiculous! People will look for any excuse to blame something on racism. "Preserve our heritage" is not a racist comment. You hear that phrase come from people of all races constantly. There is Black History month where African Americans try to "preserve their heritage." No one condemns them for that. There is the National Puerto Rican Day Parade to preserve the Puerto Rican Americans' heritage. Again, no one calls that being racist. If a white American group happens to hang a sign that says, "Preserve our heritage," then so be it. They have just as much right as any other race in America to try to preserve their heritage.
Bob

Kawasaki, Japan

#2 Jun 9, 2008
nothing racist here. White people bulit this country, time to take a little pride in that instead of feeling liberal white guilt.
Bob

Kawasaki, Japan

#3 Jun 9, 2008
Nothing racist about it.
ex-pat

Santa Rosa, CA

#4 Jul 2, 2008
umm. actually, black slaves did a lot of buildin' themselves. and promoting a racist organization goes a little bit beyond taking pride in being white.
Bob wrote:
nothing racist here. White people bulit this country, time to take a little pride in that instead of feeling liberal white guilt.
Bob

Nihon'odori, Japan

#5 Jul 6, 2008
Please enlighten us as to all the great works blacks have done in the US.

Since: Jan 07

Pleasanton, CA

#6 Jul 7, 2008
Bob,

Ever pick up a book? Did you attend elementary school?

“Vladdy's little impaler.”

Since: Jun 08

15th century Wallacia

#7 Jul 9, 2008
Well, even if I don't agree with the Skins, I do agree with their right to say what they want.

Freedom of speech is an absolute, and must be protected.

Next time it may be your group that "offends" people with thier speech.
Moms Renting In Moscow

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Jul 20, 2008
couldn't have said it better myself !!!!!!!!! u go bob

Since: Jan 07

Pleasanton, CA

#9 Jul 21, 2008
robo0425 wrote:
Well, even if I don't agree with the Skins, I do agree with their right to say what they want.
Freedom of speech is an absolute, and must be protected.
Next time it may be your group that "offends" people with thier speech.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute. You can be punished for the words you choose, and rightly so.

Words can reflect a pattern of prejudice. Words can make another feel ostracized, unwanted or threatened.

If you tell somebody "I am going to kill you", they have the right to believe you and to have you arrested for making threats.

You have no right, absolute or otherwise, to utter speech for the sole purpose of inflicting pain, or to express a prejudicial hatred.

You have the right to express your thoughts, your opinions, your fears, your hopes. For example, I would defend your right to say "I wish they would put all the blacks on a boat and send them back to Africa". As much as I completely disagree with you, I would defend your right to express that opinion.

Start substituting hateful language for the word "blacks", and not only would I not hear the intent of your message, I would consider you to be a hate monger.

Hate speech is not protected by law, nor should it be.
Dave

Herndon, VA

#10 Jul 21, 2008
Walt, you could not be more wrong about free speech in America. You most certainly DO have the right to utter speech that is for the sole purpose of inflicting pain, or expressing prejudice. How "Preserve Our Heritage" inflicts pain is beyond me, but leaving that aside, you've got the right. In fact, it's the most protected kind of speech because it's political in nature.
fistofwar

Monroeville, AL

#11 Jul 21, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
Freedom of speech is not an absolute. You can be punished for the words you choose, and rightly so.
Words can reflect a pattern of prejudice. Words can make another feel ostracized, unwanted or threatened.
If you tell somebody "I am going to kill you", they have the right to believe you and to have you arrested for making threats.
You have no right, absolute or otherwise, to utter speech for the sole purpose of inflicting pain, or to express a prejudicial hatred.
You have the right to express your thoughts, your opinions, your fears, your hopes. For example, I would defend your right to say "I wish they would put all the blacks on a boat and send them back to Africa". As much as I completely disagree with you, I would defend your right to express that opinion.
Start substituting hateful language for the word "blacks", and not only would I not hear the intent of your message, I would consider you to be a hate monger.
Hate speech is not protected by law, nor should it be.
Hate speech, and limiting the amount of speech anyone has is a direct slap in the face to the first amendment. The term "Hate speech" is even Orwellian, itself. If we start limiting any speech on the basis of "hate speech" then it won't be long before we have no freedom of speech period.

Take Europe for example, any study or survey, that portrays "minorities" in a negative light, is instantly classified as "hate speech". Thus less studies and surveys that show truth, and FACT, is not done, for fear of punishment. By that standard it is better to be stupid and ignorant of KNOWLEDGE than to offend, a protected "group". If I express my OPINION, it is up to the individual to feel "ostracized, unwanted or threatened". If they allow themselves to feel those feelings then it is THEIR PERSONAL PROBLEM, AND LAW AND GOVERNMENT HAS NO PLACE THERE.

Your example of non-hate speech is also hypocritical:

For example, I would defend your right to say "I wish they would put all the blacks on a boat and send them back to Africa".

Why is it hypocritical? Because of the fact that it WILL "make another feel ostracized, unwanted or threatened". In that case the protected minority "African Americans" (I also find it sadly humorous that non-whites are considered a minority world wide, when whites make up only 6-15% of earths total population).

Limiting speech of any forum is a classic text book step toward tyranny. While today there will be "hate speech laws" on the morrow will follow "thought crime laws". Add to the fact that any "hate speech law" would be used to oppress the majority of America and what it feels.

Take for example the controversy over homo-sexual marriage and illegal immigration. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist, to see that the MAJORITY of America is against these concepts, "hate-speech laws" would render, the MAJORITY OF AMERICA'S dislike of these practices VOID.

Hate-speech laws would then in turn favor a small group over the majority. THIS would Breed bitterness against the government. Who then is to say that the government wouldn't pass more anti-speech laws that would outlaw the opposition of the government itself?

When you start down the path of taking away mankind's BIRTH RIGHT to use HIS OWN VOCAL CORDS as he sees fit, then you align yourself with Tyranny....and this is precisely what you have done, my petty tyrant friend.
whats wrong with that

Woodbury, NJ

#12 Jul 21, 2008
god bless those boys who made that banner
on Standby

Annapolis, MD

#13 Jul 21, 2008
America is usually pretty good about this kind of thing. Even though the US media likes to compound race issues, our government is certainly better than say, Canada or the UK, where you could get jailed for this.

And despite being skinheads, these guys aren't spouting random "hate." The future may hold some rough times for those of European descent. Not only has our population not grown as fast as the other races, but there are barely any "white countries" left. The other races have plenty of countries to "fall back" on. We have nowhere to go.

“Vladdy's little impaler.”

Since: Jun 08

15th century Wallacia

#14 Jul 22, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
Freedom of speech is not an absolute. You can be punished for the words you choose, and rightly so.
Words can reflect a pattern of prejudice. Words can make another feel ostracized, unwanted or threatened.
If you tell somebody "I am going to kill you", they have the right to believe you and to have you arrested for making threats.
You have no right, absolute or otherwise, to utter speech for the sole purpose of inflicting pain, or to express a prejudicial hatred.
You have the right to express your thoughts, your opinions, your fears, your hopes. For example, I would defend your right to say "I wish they would put all the blacks on a boat and send them back to Africa". As much as I completely disagree with you, I would defend your right to express that opinion.
Start substituting hateful language for the word "blacks", and not only would I not hear the intent of your message, I would consider you to be a hate monger.
Hate speech is not protected by law, nor should it be.
Let's see how I can rip apart that nonsense without revealing my Political Science degree(oops)

Punished? Depends on what you mean. Currently, there are no laws regarding"Hate Speech" on the Federal, or any State level(just plain unconstitutional.) If you mean fired from your job, ostracized by your peers, etc. We all have to face certain consequences of our actions. The Constitution is a contract between the Federal Government and the States(and by extension the people) Therefore it does not extend elsewhere, but anyone who exercices thier rights should be willing to face the reprocussions of that action.

"Words can make another person feel osteracized ...ect, blah lah lah."

That there is like the mating call of the weak liberal.
Let me put this in the clearest terms possible...

"I HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT TO FREE SPEECH YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM GETTING YOUR FEELINGS HURT!"

Simple as that, people do not have the right to not be made to feel worthless, and the most important speech the government can protect is that which expresses predudical hatred, as it is rightfully unpopular.

As for the "I'm going to kill you" crap, not at all true. Context, intent and a variety of variables would affect wether or not someone got arrested for assault or making terroristic threats.(unless you are blind, in which case in all 50 states you would be guilty.)

Read some law books, "Hate Speech" does not exist in the American Judicial system. Only in sissy liberal colleges and in corporations poisoned by spineless HR clowns who are afraid to get sued.

It is the ideology of the weak, more than anything else that will eventually bring this nation to its knees.

Since: Jan 07

Pleasanton, CA

#15 Jul 22, 2008
Dave wrote:
Walt, you could not be more wrong about free speech in America. You most certainly DO have the right to utter speech that is for the sole purpose of inflicting pain, or expressing prejudice. How "Preserve Our Heritage" inflicts pain is beyond me, but leaving that aside, you've got the right. In fact, it's the most protected kind of speech because it's political in nature.
Dave,

Try expressing hate speech. You can and ought to be arrested.

I dare you. Go stand on a corner, and every time a black person walks by, shout at them "Go back to Africa, N****R!". Assuming you don't get beat up, let's see how long before you get arrested.

Wake up.

Since: Jan 07

Pleasanton, CA

#16 Jul 22, 2008
fistofwar wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate speech, and limiting the amount of speech anyone has is a direct slap in the face to the first amendment.
Let's see what the First Amendment says:

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.

You must be referring to "abridging the freedom of speech". In your view, any words you care to utter are protected by that right.

You are obviously wrong about that. I already gave one example. Here's another: walk into a movie theatre and scream "Fire!" then, under your breath, mutter "the manager of this overpriced joint" and try defending that in court. Your obvious intent to incite mayhem can and will get you charged with a crime.

So, you have an issue with the term "hate speech". Why is that? Do you wish to freely express your hatred toward others? Do you wish to choose the most inflammatory and hurtful terms in order to do so?

What exactly are we protecting in such a case? Or, looked at the other way, what are we depriving you of, if we say it's not allowed? Seems to me you are still free to say "I hate {target of your scorn}.

You can tell us why. You can start a movement to get others to agree with you. You can publish a newsletter explaining your stance, schedule meetings and demonstrations, and carry out your mission in any way you choose.

What you cannot do is make a deliberate effort to make an individual person feel threatened. You may choose to ignore this country's history of violence toward those we don't like, simply because we don't like them. You may wish that we didn't view such acts as acts of hatred; you may wish they were viewed as regular crimes, or no crime at all.

Fair enough. We disagree. However, what is not at issue is this: you have no inalienable right to act with hatred toward others. Your free speech rights are quite adequate to allow you to express any view you hold.

Others have rights, as well. Try to remember that.

“Vladdy's little impaler.”

Since: Jun 08

15th century Wallacia

#17 Jul 22, 2008
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see what the First Amendment says:
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.
You must be referring to "abridging the freedom of speech". In your view, any words you care to utter are protected by that right.
You are obviously wrong about that. I already gave one example. Here's another: walk into a movie theatre and scream "Fire!" then, under your breath, mutter "the manager of this overpriced joint" and try defending that in court. Your obvious intent to incite mayhem can and will get you charged with a crime.
So, you have an issue with the term "hate speech". Why is that? Do you wish to freely express your hatred toward others? Do you wish to choose the most inflammatory and hurtful terms in order to do so?
What exactly are we protecting in such a case? Or, looked at the other way, what are we depriving you of, if we say it's not allowed? Seems to me you are still free to say "I hate {target of your scorn}.
You can tell us why. You can start a movement to get others to agree with you. You can publish a newsletter explaining your stance, schedule meetings and demonstrations, and carry out your mission in any way you choose.
What you cannot do is make a deliberate effort to make an individual person feel threatened. You may choose to ignore this country's history of violence toward those we don't like, simply because we don't like them. You may wish that we didn't view such acts as acts of hatred; you may wish they were viewed as regular crimes, or no crime at all.
Fair enough. We disagree. However, what is not at issue is this: you have no inalienable right to act with hatred toward others. Your free speech rights are quite adequate to allow you to express any view you hold.
Others have rights, as well. Try to remember that.
Its not an issue of us disagreeing. Its an issue of you citing "rights" that are not rights. As I said, you do not have the right not to be offended.

The statement, "preserve our heritage" in a reference towards racial minorities by skinheads is inciting nothing. It is expression protected by the first amendment, as is a Ku Klux Klan rally or a Black Panthers rally in the '60's.

As I said, the most important speech to protect is unpopular speech. Just because some people are too thin skinned to face the fact that there are those out there that hate them for no reason they can help, does not mean that those people are being harmed in a way substantial enough to deprive an entire nation of the right to dissent.

As for your weak examples, I addressed one already, and its just not worth revisiting. As for yelling fire in a theater, well, you actually do have the right to yell fire in a theater. Under the law, you would be held responsible for the results of your actions, not your actions themselves. The act of yelling fire is in fact not illegal, if everyone sits there and watches the movie. Physically assaulting people is a crime, regardless of the weapon used. In your example the weapon used to harm people is your actions. Still, no harm, no foul.

Please read some law books before you spout drivvle.

Since: Jan 07

Pleasanton, CA

#18 Jul 22, 2008
robo0425 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not an issue of us disagreeing. Its an issue of you citing "rights" that are not rights. As I said, you do not have the right not to be offended.
Don't take things too far. I gave specific examples. They are encoded into law, and ought to be.

You do not have the right to utter whatever, to whoever, whenever.

As it should be.

Since: Jan 07

Pleasanton, CA

#19 Jul 22, 2008
P.S.

You meant "drivel".

Since: Jan 07

Pleasanton, CA

#20 Jul 22, 2008
P.P.S.

I think we all know that context matters.

When the context is nothing but hatred...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Shickshinny Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Debate: Nuclear Power - Berwick, PA (Jun '11) Aug 16 power of poison 4
Review: Penn-Kidder Property Mgmt Jun '15 BlackBear_Lake Ha... 1
News Wapwallopen man sentenced for sex with teen Apr '15 galler 1
Dr Tom Kowalski DDS Benton Pa / DEVIANT PERSON... (Oct '09) Dec '14 ripping the bong 3
Holiday Tradition Lives on in Berwick (Dec '14) Dec '14 ripping the bong 2
News Hunters invade NEPA woods during opening day of... (Dec '14) Dec '14 Juan 2
Looking for impressive pieces seller on ebay (Dec '14) Dec '14 Omygosh 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Shickshinny Mortgages