Sikh Temple Massacre Casts Light on White-Power Rock: Censor Hate Music?

by Fef Posted 2012/08/09 21:00:00

Related Topics: Music, Wisconsin Massacre, Hate Music, Censorship

605 votes
Read all 659 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	130 votes	21%
	No	475 votes	79%

The murderer who killed six members of the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin founded a white-power rock group in 2005. This connection exposed a link between hate groups and their music, which includes lyrics of hateful acts toward minorities, Jews and non-whites.

Marilyn Mayo monitors hate groups for the Anti-Defamation League. Mayo told the AFP, "Hate music helps bring haters together into a shared community." Hate groups and their members meet through hate music and hate-music festivals.

“Racist music is what keeps the movement young” and sets it apart from the image of white-hooded Ku Klux Klan members “sitting on the front porch with a shotgun,” said one-time skinhead Frank Meeink on MSNBC television. Do you think hate music should be censored? Will censoring this type of music prevent tragedies like the Wisconsin massacre from happening?

+35

Add a comment above

Zuggi 2012/08/09 00:07:23

No

+19
As much as I despise the speech, it's free speech. The same tests apply as for any speech.
>> See Replies

More polls by Fef

BigFig#9 to Marek 2012/08/20 17:57:50

Like inter-racial marriage.... or anything outside the missionary position or sex with the lights on? Your in the '50s - the 1850's. How somebody else's marriage can damage you in anyway is beyond comprehension....even if in your judgment it's 'perverted'. (I note you self identify as an atheist suggesting this determination of perversion is based solely on your own role as the 'decider'.) Many of us think being narrow minded is the most damaging perversion out there BUT since your narrow mindedness doesn't impact me (until whack-job Governors start passing vaginal probe rape laws) then I'll let your backward thinking die out with you in not too many years as by-gone restrictions on other relationships has (and are).

reply
Marek to BigFig#9 2012/08/20 22:53:33

Would it make you feel better if I said that god condemns perverts?

reply
gary to BigFig#9 2012/08/13 14:45:19

F*ck the little old ladies church types.

reply
Osama M... to Bill 2012/08/12 21:58:07

"Only liberals believe in censorship" REALLY? When was the last time you heard of a liberal group trying to ban published books in public schools? Thats what I thought.

reply
Bill to Osama M... 2012/08/12 22:17:29

+1
Number one, the American Library Association is neither left or right leaning. And banning smut from children is not censorship.

Example of removed books: “Baby Be-Bop,” the coming-out story of a gay teen, which includes descriptions of his sexual encounters in bathroom stalls with men he never talks to.

Sorry bud, but that doesn't belong in public schools.

Number two there are a multitude of cases where liberals have tried to ban books....

Chicagoans Overwhelmingly Vote to Ban Palin, Beck & Coulter Books at Book Fair in Obama’s Home Town

http://rebelpundit.com/2011/0...

Liberals Abandoning the First Amendment, Banning Books in Virginia

http://techliberation.com/200...

The list goes on and on and on...

reply
Osama M... to Bill 2012/08/13 01:23:49

After I wrote that, I got to thinking that there are obviously some books that even liberals would agree probably do not belong in public schools (not including colleges). Sexuality explicit books obviously do not belong in school libraries.

But give me a break Bill...Harry Potter and Darwinism? Look up who was trying to ban those books and writings and then come back and talk about how only liberals believe in censorship.

reply
Bill to Osama M... 2012/08/13 01:48:09

There will ALWAYS be somebody trying to ban free speech, just as liberals did last week with their failed protests at Chick Fil A. The operative word being "TRY".

Harry Potter and Darwinism haven't been banned and only a small fringe element wants them to be. Unless you're talking about private religious schools which have every right to ban them.

reply
Osama M... to Bill 2012/08/13 17:07:08

I never said Harry Potter and Darwinism were banned...but conservative groups were/are trying to censor it. Would it kill you to even look it up? You couldn't be that oblivious to conservatives attempts at censorship, so I can only guess you are living in denial.

BTW, I know you are trying really hard to make this fit, but the Chik-Fil-A incident was not a case of liberals trying to censor free speech, it was a political reaction to what some groups considered a civil bias. If the owner of Chick-Fil-A came out and publicly state he was against interracial marriage, would it be a free speech issue if interracial couples and their supporters protested against his businesses?

reply
Bill to Osama M... 2012/08/13 17:18:58

+1
If the Chick Fil A guy came out against interracial couples he'd have an absolute right to his opinion. If you truly believe in free speech you have to believe in allowing it for EVERYBODY, not just those you agree with. Chick Fil A hires and serves thousands of gay people, so there went the claims of discrimination.

By the way, looked up the Harry Potter claim which as I thought it was a few small fringe churches and a handful of protesters. Hardly what I'd call mainstream conservatives.

reply
Osama M... to Bill 2012/08/14 01:29:31

Bill Bill Bill...'cmon now. This is not a free speech issue. No one said the Chik-Fil-A guy could not say what he wanted to. He can. He did. He can still do it. No one said that he can't have an opinion or even voice it publicly. The government isn't going to throw him in jail for what he said, are they? But the Chik-Fil-A president is a public figure who was publically stating his opinion on a politically active subject. I'm not sure how this is a censorship or free speech issue.

reply
Osama M... to Bill 2012/08/14 01:31:34

Well, thanks for at least giving a teeny tiny amount of ADMISSION that just maybe there are groups of conservatives that are very much down for censoring media...and its not ALL LIBERAL FAULT. lol. Thanks for the discussion BTW. Take care, I'm off this subject for now.

reply
Osama M... to Bill 2012/08/13 01:35:15

While your at it, feel free to look up 'conservative bury brigades' and/or 'Digg Patriots' to see how conservative groups are attempting to censor social media sites. Cheers.

reply
Bill to Osama M... 2012/08/13 01:51:17

+1
Again, I've never in my life heard of any of these groups you've mentioned. If that's their thing they can attempt to do anything they want, but nobody seems to know this is going on, or care, except you.

reply
Osama M... to Bill 2012/08/13 17:20:51 (edited)

BILL, are you familiar with these classic titles? 'The Great Gatsby'... 'Catcher in the Rye'... 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.. 'The Color Purple'... 'Ulysses'.. '1984'.. 'The Lord of the Flies' Are you? I'm betting you've probably read a few in your school daze. Well, you will be shocked to discover that one of the largest conservative groups in the USA, Focus on the Family, has been trying to ban these books for years from public libraries across the country.

Now, explain to me again how it is that 'Only liberals believe in censorship'.

You can't. I'm going to guess that when you made that statement you were most likely repeating a platitude you heard on a conservative talk show or website. Cheers!

reply
addie 2012/08/12 05:27:49 (edited)

No

We should not censor anything!!

reply
bpf 2012/08/12 05:20:19

No

No deal with animals as you would any other mad dog....free speech is for all even the brain dead....if you censor this then censor the RAP violence music against women, the police, etc.

reply
morgan 2012/08/12 04:34:30

No

+1
as much as i dont like hate, i cant help but remind myself of the first amendment.

"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"

reply
Mellow 2012/08/12 03:01:38

No

But this guy is still a POS

reply
IJ 2012/08/12 02:18:45

No

You're free to be stupid in this country.

reply
Bill to IJ 2012/08/12 05:38:33

+1
Separated at birth?

reply
BigFig#9 to IJ 2012/08/12 08:05:07

A freedom so MANY choose to exercise! : )

reply
JoeM 2012/08/12 01:56:51

No

+1
The problem is deciding who is qualified to define what is hate speech. We will have to let them be if we all wish to live in freedom. Where speech becomes actions, then something can be done.

reply
brian.southworth.921 2012/08/12 01:32:18

No

+1
An ideal is like the wind and cannot be captured. You may stop the music, but the ideal is still there. And it makes them feel justified by taking it away. The will claim they are being crucified and becomes a types of martyrs. It only makes them stronger and drives it under ground. What we need to look at is the society that made him. How do we change those societies to not produce this kind of thinking. If there is a social sickness there must be a social cure.

reply
Diane 2012/08/11 22:09:13

Yes

+1
Yes, I do think hate music should be censored. Censorship is sometimes necessary.

reply
GoatHorns to Diane 2012/08/12 00:51:38

+4
right, so censorship is okay, as long as you don't like the message that's being censored.

reply
Diane to GoatHorns 2012/08/12 04:52:42

There are some forms of speech that are illegal -- child pornography is one of them. Speech that incites violence is illegal. Hate speech and music should be illegal too.

reply
GoatHorns to Diane 2012/08/12 16:22:50

but who decides what hate speech or hate music is? and, if it was up to the government, heavy metal in the '80s would've been banned.

reply
Christo... to Diane 2012/08/12 00:56:38

Tell that to the Founding Fathers.

reply
Diane to Christo... 2012/08/12 04:53:14

Not all speech is legal. It's illegal to incite violence.

reply
Christo... to Diane 2012/08/12 04:56:49

What you call "hate speech" is not among those things.

reply
Diane to Christo... 2012/08/12 04:57:28

I am saying it should be.

reply
addie to Diane 2012/08/12 05:33:09 (edited)

How do we decide who has the right opinions?

You being against the Constitution is hate speech, in many people's opinion, so do ou feel you should be censored?

reply
Diane to addie 2012/08/12 14:29:00

If I hate you because of the color or your skin, or because of your religion, that's hate speech. It's very clearly defined.

reply
addie to Diane 2012/08/12 16:46:50

You missed my, very simple, point and that of others here, which basically is, who decides who has the right opinions? You? Should we ask Prince Phillip, George Washington? Or should we be able to choose for ourselves?

reply
Diane to addie 2012/08/12 22:54:10 (edited)

Who decides when something is child pornography? Some might call it art. Who should we ask? Prince Phillip, George Washington?

reply
addie to Diane 2012/08/12 23:33:15

That is a very good point. Oh, brother. What a nut. lol

reply
Christo... to Diane 2012/08/12 05:36:42

It's not yours to say, thank goodness.

reply
Sailor ... to Diane 2012/08/12 08:19:54 (edited)

i feel like i should say something antisemitic, but i won't.

reply
Diane to Sailor ... 2012/08/12 14:31:45

Good. You censored yourself. See how easy that was?

reply
Sailor ... to Diane 2012/08/12 18:31:25 (edited)

... not a chance, matzoh-muncher!

reply