NAACP, Homestead council in dispute over Confederate flag (Miami, Kendall: vs, store)

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by crisp444

I disagree that the Confederate flag is an appropriate comparison to the swastika. To my knowledge, the Confederate flag is a symbol of the American South and the secessionist movement; not a symbol of slavery or hate. I am not culturally "Southern" and have absolutely no affinity for the Confederacy or its flag. However, I disagree with disallowing its use and display in public places because the way I see it, it is not a symbol that is widely considered hateful.

How would you all react if I were to tell you that the image of Che Guevara is offensive to me because he murdered hundreds of people in Cuba for speaking out against the revolution, practicing religion, and being gay? I am not really that offended by seeing his image all over posters and t-shirts, but I know many people who get quite upset and offended when they see this. Should Che's image be banned just because these people are offended? If the Confederate flag is a "hate" symbol, why isn't the famous picture of Che that is worn on t-shirts, seen on posters, and displayed at parades and protests? Both images evoke hate in at least some people's minds.

you contradict yourself here. What were the issues they were fighting over? The south didn't fight the north simply because they wanted to be separate so they can grow mullets and have fiddle contests when ever they pleased. Part of the issue was the right to continue practicing chattel slavery. You can not separate the two issues, they are intertwined. The swastika stands for much more than Hitler's Germany (it is a Hindu symbol). But unless you are a practicing hindu displaying it for religious reasons is beyond crazy. I think before people want to start proclaiming things ok or not ok they need to educated themselelves on ALL the facts surrounding a issue so they can make informed decisions on what is right or wrong.

[Marlin331]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

What were the issues they were fighting over? The south didn't fight the north simply because they wanted to be separate so they can grow mullets and have fiddle contests when ever they pleased. Part of the issue was the right to continue practicing chattel slavery.

You're correct that one of the reasons for which the South wanted to secede was to continue the practice of slavery. However, just because support of slavery was one of the motivations for the secessionist movement and the flag was created during the secessionist movement is not enough to convince me that the flag should be considered hate speech. Something that indirectly references support of slavery 150 years ago doesn't cross that line. It would be ideal if people were more conscious of the forums in which they displayed the Confederate flag, but again, the First Amendment doesn't protect us from being offended. If a lawsuit were to arise over this issue, I imagine that the Supreme Court would find the following connection far too tenuous to hold that the Confederate flag is hate speech not protected by the First Amendment:

Hatred of blacks/feeling that blacks are inferior being --> Support of slavery (along with other issues) --> Support of a secessionist movement 150 years ago --> Creation of a flag for the Confederate states to rally support of the Confederacy as an autonomous nation --> Use of the flag in the South today, largely in non-racial contexts

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by crisp444

You're correct that one of the reasons for which the South wanted to secede was to continue the practice of slavery. However, just because support of slavery was one of the motivations for the secessionist movement and the flag was created during the secessionist movement is not enough to convince me that the flag should be considered hate speech. Something that indirectly references support of slavery 150 years ago doesn't cross that line. It would be ideal if people were more conscious of the forums in which they displayed the Confederate flag, but again, the First Amendment doesn't protect us from being offended. If a lawsuit were to arise over this issue, I imagine that the Supreme Court would find the following connection far too tenuous to hold that the Confederate flag is hate speech not protected by the First Amendment:

Hatred of blacks/feeling that blacks are inferior being --> Support of slavery (along with other issues) --> Support of a secessionist movement 150 years ago --> Creation of a flag for the Confederate states to rally support of the Confederacy as an autonomous nation --> Use of the flag in the South today, largely in non-racial contexts

your logic is extremely flawed. As someone else pointed out, in that case then we should all be able to fly the nazi flag without anyone being offended. I mean yeah the Nazis did partly want to kill the Jews, the gypsies and anyone else not of "Aryan" stock but that flag is deeper than that. It also references the origins of "aryan" history and has religious significants as well. I should be able to wear a Ernesto Guevara shirt around miami without cubans being upset about it. I should also be able to wear a shirt with a basque serperatest insignia on it at a Spanish gathering. If you can't see the flaw in your logic then I really don't know what else to say.

[Marlin331]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

your logic is extremely flawed. As someone else pointed out, in that case then we should all be able to fly the nazi flag without anyone being offended. I mean yeah the Nazis did partly want to kill the Jews, the gypsies and anyone else not of "Aryan" stock but that flag is deeper than that. It also references the origins of "aryan" history and has religious significants as well. I should be able to wear a Ernesto Guevara shirt around miami without cubans being upset about it. I should also be able to wear a shirt with a basque serperatest insignia on it at a Spanish gathering. If you can't see the flaw in your logic then I really don't know what else to say.

I'm not sure you understand that my point is that you should be able to protest against gays and wear the Che logo and make racist comments even if they do offend me and others. All of this is, in general, protected by the First Amendment. Boohoo if I'm offended, and if I want to do something about it, the burden is on me to convince the Supreme Court that it is hate speech.

You're really not explaining how my logic is flawed. I have a feeling you're saying that because you don't understand my point that the First Amendment allows almost every kind of free speech and that the "hate speech" category is to be construed very narrowly. Also, symbols are not deemed to be "hate speech" per se; courts have held that the context and manner in which they are presented/posted/flaunted will matter in determining whether they are meant to be "hate speech." Not even a swastika alone is "hate speech;" it must be displayed "with intent to intimidate," and as "fighting words," to be considered "hate speech" that is not protected by the First Amendment.

Right now there is a hot debate in the California legislature over whether to pass a law in which there is a rebuttable presumption that a noose, among other things, is hate speech. If this legislation is passed, it is expected that there will be immediate First Amendment challenges, as other state laws defining certain acts and symbols as "hate speech" have been held unconstitutional for being overbroad (because whether something is "hate speech" is very situation-specific). If it is unclear that a noose is hate speech in certain circumstances, there is no way in hell that the Supreme Court would categorize routine display of the Confederate flag as hate speech.

[cuba libre]

The U.S. used to be a slave country - the 2nd to last colony to abolish slavery in the world (1865) before Cuba in 1886. Is flying the U.S. flag racist?

[Marlin331]

Originally Posted by cuba libre

The U.S. used to be a slave country - the 2nd to last colony to abolish slavery in the world (1865) before Cuba in 1886. Is flying the U.S. flag racist?

Even if it were "racist," it would still not be considered "hate speech." The First Amendment protects "racist" speech unless it is used as "fighting words" that are uttered/displayed "with intent to intimidate."

[svendthrift]

Originally Posted by cuba libre

The U.S. used to be a slave country - the 2nd to last colony to abolish slavery in the world (1865) before Cuba in 1886. Is flying the U.S. flag racist?

Related to that, the last Islamic Caliphate began to limit slavery in 1927, and slaves were widely sold in Arabia after that. Slaves were sold in Saudi up to the early 1960's. Is this a hate-symbol?:


http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/pictures/crescents.gif (broken link)

[rogerbacon]

Originally Posted by svendthrift

Related to that, the last Islamic Caliphate began to limit slavery in 1927, and slaves were widely sold in Arabia after that. Slaves were sold in Saudi up to the early 1960's. Is this a hate-symbol?:

[image if islam removed]

Very true. There are still parts of Musilim Africa and the middle east where slavery continues today. Of course it is not race based but belief based. Only non-Musilims can be slaves.

[Doctor Octagon]

The rebel flag is fine with me. It's just Southern heritage and being proud of it. Doesnt mean people are racist.

[matchpoint]

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of a group of people who fought for slavery and for "Southern Values" which were nothing more than wealthy white people sitting around, drinking mint juleps while poor whites and enslaved blacks toiled in the field or the home.

It's basically a worthless flag and symbol today and all this "intellectualizing" carries the whiff of "Lost Cause" which is just dopey white nostalgia.

Che Guavara is nothing more than a weak straw man in this thread.

Absolutely yes as to the removal of the Confederate Flag from all public spaces. For one thing, history is usually written by the victors, not the losers....