`Redneck Shop' Creates Dispute in S.C.

Black people should withhold paying their taxes in protest.

Unfortunately, that would get them arrested.

Too bad a shop like that doesn't get KKK supporters arrested as Nazis in Germany would be.

Be great if all products of hatred were banned, such as rap music that speaks of killing white people...

Be great if all products of hatred were banned, such as rap music that speaks of killing white people...

Excellent point.

Be great if all products of hatred were banned, such as rap music that speaks of killing white people...

Not that I condone advocation of violence, but in context, it looks like Ice Cube's stuff is mostly about reaction to violent racism perpetrated against black people.

Metaphorically, Ice Cube's stuff is like the foliage and blooms whereas this guy's shop is closer to the root.

Of course, every racist has a "poor opressed me" narrative that makes their skewed worldview a necessary protective factor (in their mind), but I personally have a harder time buying that from the white racist than from the black one.

Racism is a disease that festers in all races. Until we hold the idea that racism is wrong, globally, this idiotic cycle will continue and guys like this and hate rappers will continue to have customers.

I am shocked at all this. I am not a racist. I think the KKK is despicable. I would never visit this man's store. But to say you want freedom of speech limited is deplorable.

Germany isn't right either. I have no clue about their constitution, but here in America we value freedom of speech - and that especially is so when people do things very different than you.

I would not condone such hatred against any ethnicity, religion, or group, but I think that we are forgetting that people are entitled to have prejudice, to sell products that support prejudice, and openly speak their ignorant prejudices for all to hear. What is equally as ignorant as prejudice is offense. Nothing harbors hate like offense. It is perfectly legal to try to offend others, but in contrast there is no right to not be offended. Suck it up America. Quit taking offense at every insult.

Be great if all products of hatred were banned, such as rap music that speaks of killing white people...

Like hate rap this guy's views are a disgrace, but by banning such items we are allowing the government more legislation to misinterpret and abuse.

On the other hand, Rev. Kennedy owns the building and I believe he should have the right to kick the fat arrogant, racist, redneck out. Likely, though, it was in the closing documents of the purchase.

"If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

~Noam Chomsky

Germany isn't right either. I have no clue about their constitution, but here in America we value freedom of speech - and that especially is so when people do things very different than you.

I would not condone such hatred against any ethnicity, religion, or group, but I think that we are forgetting that people are entitled to have prejudice, to sell products that support prejudice, and openly speak their ignorant prejudices for all to hear.

These opinions are fine on free speech, but what is being forgotten here is that every 'freedom' right carries a responsibility that others are not oppressed or excluded by the very freedom we wish to enjoy. Usually, people who would agree with these statements are the ones with the power to make them, regardless of the offence to others. This shop is not only an aberration but is entirely contemptuous of the community it is supposed to be serving and something isn't right about that. Thankfully, we wouldn't have a shop like that operating in Britain because we like to think that everyone matters in our society.

Yeah, the British aren't plagued with prejudice and racism, right? They are much to civilized.

Black people should withhold paying their taxes in protest.

sc is already under a huge naacp boycott and have been for years over our flag, we lose millions of dollars just so we can continue to be bigots. Mainly we lose major sporting events that used to come to our state.

"If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

mighty fine and true words.. freedom of expression was made specifically for unpopular expression, as popular expression needs no stated law. STill that doesn't mean we must provide a soap box for that expression. That doesn't mean we should allow him to peddle hate. It does mean I have no right to shut him up, but that doesn't mean I have to put up with his store.
You can also state that all drugs should be legal, that doesn't mean I have to allow a drug dealer on the corner.

For those of you who enjoy discounting information solely based on the source...

Epictetus

I did not say there was no racism in Britain. That would be silly and untrue; I clearly said that such a shop would not be here because it would be closed under the 'incitement to racism' part of our act.

Furthermore, the comparison you are trying to make, as represented by this quote, does not hold:

Speaking of a "xenophobic and intolerant coverage of these groups of persons in the media", the report also condemns the "tone of the discourse resorted to by politicians in support of the adoption and enforcement of increasingly restrictive asylum and immigration laws."

The report was talking about how the media and government treat refugees etc. Not about an ordinary shop in a local multiracial community.

Ms CYPRAH,

Thankfully, we wouldn't have a shop like that operating in Britain because we like to think that everyone matters in our society.

I was the blanket statement "we like to think that everyone matters in our society" that I was referring to, believe it or not we like to think the same way about our society. Didn't mean to offend, the sarcasm wasn't necessarily warranted, for this I do sincerely apologize.

Racism exists in every society, on every continent, from all races. Then again, not everyone of every race on every continent is a racist, unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Racism exists in every society, on every continent, from all races. Then again, not everyone of every race on every continent is a racist, unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Absolutely, Epictetus, I quite agree. And it is always sad about the squeaky wheel getting attention because that is why the wishes of the silent majority often get overlooked. No offence taken, by the way and thanks for your input. :o)

Germany doesn't tolerate neo-Nazis and neither should we accept the KKK.

I agree. Neither should we tolerate the Malik Zulu Shabazz and his coterie of racists in the New Black Panther Party. Racists and bigots of all stripes and colors should be shunned.

This all seems pretty simple. The man is breaking federal laws and can't sell those items legally. Just because he has gotten away with it so far, does not make it legal by "status Quo." He can be forced to stop selling racist items. Simply give him a choice, move or get rid of the racist stuff. The legal fees would break him and it would be a ground breaking case. It would be another George Wallace aka: head in the sand, situation. Let him stand on the front steps and yell. He has national attention now. I bet the store does not last 6 months. Let's send the reverend some money for legal fees to fight the old turd!

Epictetus@1.3:

"Be great if all products of hatred were banned, such as rap music that speaks of killing white people..."

Hey, thanks for posting that link to an organization that supports white supremacy without giving us a warning! Yuck. I'm going to clear out my cache now and then take a shower.

I don't get it. Out of context the above quote seems reasonable. Racism and violence should be stopped everywhere. Personally, I believe that violence is more damaging than racism. Violence shows a blatant disregard for human rights with a nasty and dangerous disposition. Racism is just fear and ignorance. Without a vehicle, we can change racism. But when we have violent outbursts, everyone takes up arms because they may have to defend themselves.

I don't get it. Out of context the above quote seems reasonable.

Which quote do you mean, Cat Lady? Do you mean the one about all products of hatred being banned? Because that was sort of my point. Epictetus made a statement that could be defended, but then he/she posted a link to a group with ties to white supremacy. For me, that kind of shoots one's credibility all to hell.

Racism is just fear and ignorance.

Unless you are the group against whom racism is perpetrated, then it a whole lot more.

I did not open the link. I simply mean that no matter who the comments come from, if they are racist, they are bad. Racism is just fear and ignorance. That I stand by. The KKK wear masks and travel in groups, if that is not fear, what is? Making music to threaten another race is just as bad.

Making music to threaten another race is just as bad.

I agree, but I think one has to look at context in terms of music, too. However, since I think this is starting to drift outside the purview of this thread, I'll leave a debate about the artistic merits of protest music for another time. :-)

But when we have violent outbursts, everyone takes up arms because they may have to defend themselves.

And an eye for an eye leaves us all blind! Great comment, Cat Lady.

There is nothing strange about it. The only thing that is anything different than the way the US has handled this in the past is that somebody cared enough to put it in the paper.

very much alive and well here that is for sure.
heck we have this guy that sells the best bar b que you ever tasted. he was more than willing to personnaly lose millions of dolalrs as all the store chains stopped carring his product as he publishes a news rag saying how great slavery was.
Despite being a racists bigot a good bit of his customers are black.

He has black customers? Now that is pathetic. Those poor people are blind to their own chains! All they have to do is walk past the store and he would loose enough income to have to change or move.

bbq is huge in the south.. and unfort maurise wins countless blind taste tests,
most of us just laugh at the man.. he was on the daily show once where they make fun of people like him.

When I was still in CT, about 15-20 years ago, the KKK was still holding rallies and marching. So it isn't just a Southern thing. I'm not certain, but I imagine the racists haven't stopped hating the past decade.

When I was still in CT,

You saw them in CT ? Whoa... That surprises me, I thought they tended to stay more in the South.

I thought they tended to stay more in the South.

Racism is everywhere. It is just not always so obvious as it is in Mr. Howard's shop.

Racism is everywhere.

Sad but true....I have seen some here in Seattle, but far less then back in Virginia and usually it is in tacky gift shops.

I've lived 19 years in Seattle, and 21 years divided between Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, California and Arizona.

It's everywhere.

You saw them in CT ? Whoa... That surprises me

Because there can't possibly be an racism within the Northeast Liberalism huh?

Only because of the 5 years I worked out of Stamford CT, I did not see any. I cannot speak for the rest of the area.

When I was still in CT, about 15-20 years ago, the KKK was still holding rallies and marching. So it isn't just a Southern thing. I'm not certain, but I imagine the racists haven't stopped hating the past decade.

There was a KKK rally 3 years ago in an 85% minority neighborhood in Toledo, Ohio (that's the northern edge of the state, about 30/45 mins or so from Michigan.)

So, no, they haven't gone away, and yes they are still everywhere.

Sectim42
no but it has been well assocaited with the south since the civil war.
we are were the kaln lives we ar were the klan has rallies we are the last states to fight desegragation, etc
that's not to say the north doesn't have i's racism but it has little to do with dem vs republican.

It does suprise me a bit to see it in CT, I grew up there and intend to move back for college. But anywhere people exist there will be discrimination. But people are entitled to express their beliefs, a ban on public display of hate should be an offense.

a ban on public display of hate should be an offense.

EDIT (Sounds weird): a ban on public display of hate is a logical idea.

a ban on public display of hate is a logical idea.

So in other words, you're here on the public Web site Newsvine displaying your hatred for public displays of hate?

So in other words, you're here on the public Web site Newsvine displaying your hatred for public displays of hate?

Nothing personal but that is the stupidest argument ever made, and what is do pathetic and sad is that you didn't originate it but just repeat what the party line is. People who have a tolerance for inequality --- no feelings or empathy for others outside their "tribe" are throwbacks, and need to be either reeducated, or isolated, and expelled from society if they can't be. They are an anti-social cancer that rots our community. You don't hate cancer a disease, you cut it out and discard it or die.

By "ban" I am supposing the original commenter means some sort of legal action to "ban," say, walking down the street and yelling a racial slur. I seem to remember some sort of document that says we have the right to say whatever we want. I'm almost certain I've read that somewhere.

The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes. So although everyone has the right to free speech, we also have the right to not listen, and to tell you to STFU and stop spreading lies. Inciting violence is a crime too, no mater how you word it.

Dan, I was about to jump on you about 5.13, until I read this. Excellent post! This might be the first time I've found myself agreeing with you, but you're dead on here.

The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes. So although everyone has the right to free speech, we also have the right to not listen, and to tell you to STFU and stop spreading lies. Inciting violence is a crime too, no mater how you word it.

1) Of course employers, businesses, etc, can place their own restrictions on their private premises. This isn't the same as saying:

EDIT (Sounds weird): a ban on public display of hate is a logical idea.

2) You have the right to tell a person to "STFU" for the same reason the person you want to "STFU" has the right to talk about whatever it is you want the person to "STFU" about. You can't have one and not the either.

3) Define "inciting violence" for me. If I say "I hate people with yellow shirts," and people with yellow shirts start rioting as a result, am I guilty for their irrational behavior?

1)

Never said anything to the contray, read the whole post.

2) You have the right to tell a person to "STFU" for the same reason the person you want to "STFU" has the right to talk about whatever it is you want the person to "STFU" about. You can't have one and not the either.

Wrong. You can tell someone to STFU in your own home, in your own business, or/and make them leave. If they do not leave and continue to speak you can have them arrested.

3) Define "inciting violence" for me. If I say "I hate people with yellow shirts," and people with yellow shirts start rioting as a result, am I guilty for their irrational behavior?

Sometimes, yes. There is legal precedence for this. Also if tell someone they should kill themselves and then they do, can make you responsible, this has also been established in court.

Never said anything to the contray, read the whole post.

I know you didn't. I said you were stating the obvious, and your obvious statement didn't defend (or even address) the original comment:

EDIT (Sounds weird): a ban on public display of hate is a logical idea.

Wrong. You can tell someone to STFU in your own home, in your own business, or/and make them leave. If they do not leave and continue to speak you can have them arrested.

I've already addressed this in point one. This is not the same as:

EDIT (Sounds weird): a ban on public display of hate is a logical idea.

... hell, it pretty much defends the bigot in the story that spawned this conversation, actually. This guy has a contract that says he's free to conduct business in property he pays rent for.

Sometimes, yes. There is legal precedence for this. Also if tell someone they should kill themselves and then they do, can make you responsible, this has also been established in court.

First of all, I'd like to see that court case. Second, showing me the court case won't make it right. Third, show me another court case in which a person made a statement - not a command, not an order - that others used for their own violent intention was held responsible for said violence. If I say to all people with yellow shirts "go beat up everyone that doesn't wear a yellow shirt," I am part of the violence.

Where does your bull@!$%# stop? So I can be held responsible if I say "I hate people with yellow shirts" and people with yellow shirts start rioting? What if I don't say it, but simply refuse to wear a yellow shirt, and people use it as an excuse to riot? How are the situations at all different?

Your suggestion that it is OK to hold people responsible for the actions of others is absurd. Thankfully, the Constitution contradicts you. Unfortunately, nobody in the government really seems to give a @!$%#.

First of all, I'd like to see that court case.

So you doubt my veracity? Do your own damn reserserch then, I don't work for you and I'm sure my time is worth more then yours.

Second, showing me the court case won't make it right.

Then why do you want to see them? You have made up your mind and are too obdurate to change it, even in the face of any evidence that I may present, you have said this. I have better things to waste time on a fallacious thinking recusant.

Ready for the Next Gang member, hopefully one more intelligent.
Sieg Heil.

So you doubt my veracity? Do your own damn reserserch then, I don't work for you and I'm sure my time is worth more then yours.

You're the one who made the claim - I figured this meant you knew where I could read about a court case in which one person was deemed responsible for another person's actions. I'd hate to think you made a claim without knowing what you were talking about.

Then why do you want to see them? You have made up your mind and are too obdurate to change it, even in the face of any evidence that I may present, you have said this. I have better things to waste time on a fallacious thinking recusant.

Ah yes, my favorite Internet argument. "I'm smarter than you, so I'm not going to waste my time." You were arguing against free speech. I pointed out that the Constitution protects free speech. That is what this argument amounts to. And you've provided zero evidence, to be exact.

Ready for the Next Gang member, hopefully one more intelligent.
Sieg Heil.

Hate speech!

In all seriousness, how ironic that the person defending limits on free speech busts out the "sieg heil" as an insult on the other. I can't make that up.

You're the one who made the claim - I figured this meant you knew where I could read about a court case i..

Sorry for learning something in college and then having the audacity to share what I learned with those who are less knowledgeable.

Ah yes, my favorite Internet argument. "I'm smarter than you, so I'm not going to waste my time."

Sometimes it's true, others it's not. I can't teach you anything, if yoiu don't want to learn form me, nothing I show you will change your mind, you said this.

Hate speech!

Yes I hate narrow minded fools and people who revel in the arrogance of their ignorance as if it were a virtue.

how ironic that the person defending limits on free speech busts out the "sieg heil" as an insult on the other...

Schprechen Nicht Sie Deutsch? "sieg heil" means, "victory welfare" or "Siegwohlfahrt" and is not derogatory, but seeing how you are defending Nazi's rights to speak and in turn "Exist", (which I think as insane as defending cancers right to live). I thought you might be one, or are sympathetic to their ideology. Are you? I'm an American German whose Family fought on the American side during WWII, and lost some to it. So I still carry animosity towards the Far-Right. Sue me.

I have a really nice bumper sticker, I wonder if they would be interested in selling it ?

Beautify America-Shot a Redneck

And you are free to say that because of freedom of speech

Thanks for letting me know that. I learned about Freedom of Speech about 45 years ago. :-)

his point is he is equating freedom of speech with commerse.
and I will say again you can advocate the legalisation of drugs
that doesn't mean you can sell drugs on the corner.

Freedom of speech is more than a buzz word, please learn what it actually means.

Joules, you keep drawing this same, bogus, comparison over and over. You can't peddle drugs on the street because it's illegal to sell drugs. You can sell hateful KKK crap, because it's not illegal to sell it. There's no comparison here with what you can or can not say.

There have been stories written about this store or a store similar to it in Laurens before.

It's South Carolina. Laurens is not an isolated incident by any stretch.

no ignoring them lets them fester and grow in the dark.
leave him alone and he will attract customers, and those customers will recruit other customers, etc. hey racism is ok there is even a store.. no I say don't hide them, bring them out in the light and the righteous will drive them out.
You do know that tony snow recently said racaism was dead and no big deal anymore..
it is because people like this remain hidden that people like snow can think the problem is gone.

NO IT IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO IGNORE THE GUY.\ I say now his addy is on the net, he will get plenty of hate mail.
I doubt he will last 2 more years.
Don't hide em, push the bigots into the light where they can burn under the eyes of moral outrage.

NO IT IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO IGNORE THE GUY.

I agree, JoulesBeef. Evil ignored is evil expanding at its own pace, covertly, to a point where it then takes over and it's too late to stop it. The silence and inaction of the majority is what keeps racism thriving because they condone it by their silence.

That would be nice, but I have a feeling that the KKK will never die.

They'll die after William Tecumseh Sherman is cloned and given a free hand...

In the meantime the point is to keep them in remission. Keep them fat and happy on beer, cornpone and... the Jerry Springer Show...

====

i dont think they should be illegal, just don't allow them to hide.
hate speech should be shouted, not wispered. the best way to put out a fire is to actually see it.

And how many of these social perverts will be shouting their hate in public, legal or not? Like all diseases they need to be cut out and discarded before the infection spreads, even though it is legal, they need to be exposed for the degenerate ignorant filth that they are. This shop is worse then a porn shop for pedophiles, should that be legal?. It's better Step on the sparks and put them out whenever you find them until they are all gone. Freedom of speech is not freedom to spread lies and hate, to shout "fire" in a theater, when there is no fire.

better having them shout in public than gaining suppoorters silently in closed dusty halls.
let our children see what we think about "people" like this

I disagree, why waste a bullet on something you can kill with a stick. That's just me.

These groups should be made illegal as they are in Germany.

I don't get it, Dan. In moving down the page from 5.15 to 15.4, you seem to have forgotten every fact you know above. Are Dan and Zoilus perhaps two different people, one of whom can read the Constitution and the other can't?

I don't get it,

Gee, thats not my fault, I have not been contradictory at all. Did you read, or read-into my posts? Inciting violence and hate is not protected in the U.S. Constitution. And freedom of speech is not a unlimited right, except for congress and the making of laws that restrict it from the people.

"Is it less dishonest to do what is wrong, because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.

Get it now?

You are being contradictory. In #5.15, you infer by comparison (although I will grant that you don't come right out and state) that the government has no standing to step in here, and that the onus is on us as citizens to apply pressure to these idiots. Then you come back in #15 and claim: These groups should be made illegal as they are in Germany. Which leads me to to conclude, as I said above, that in between those two posts, you forgot everything you seemed to know above. You recognize that congress cannot make a law, but you want it to do so anyway? Or is #15 calling for every individual community to pass this law?

As for: And freedom of speech is not a unlimited right, except for congress and the making of laws that restrict it from the people.

Then it wouldn't be a right; it would be a privilege. However, you were right the first time. It is a right. It's just that employers have the right not to employee those who cannot use this right responsibly, and people have a right not to listen and to point out that the speaker is wrong.

LOL, OK. What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", do you have trouble with? The Constitution is a document that puts restrictions on what the "Government" can and can not do and is a protection for the PEOPLE and by the People, of Their Rights of Sovereignty over the Government.

But Saying, "I think we should kill President Bush." is an exception, as much as saying "Blacks and Jews should all be killed". Why are saying these things not protected by the 1st amendment? Because speech is a limited right. All rights have limits. When you infringes on others rights, then you find those limits very fast in a society. There are no rights that when taken to extremes don't become infringements to others rights. Privilege? A privilege is a special right, and you don't have any. Don't play lexical semantics with the Constitution because you don't understand it.

and people have a right not to listen and to point out that the speaker is wrong.

And a parent has the right and duty to protect and to keep ignorant and stupid and harmful @!$%# away from their kids, like porn and ignorant Nazi hatred.

I stated my position and my question quite clearly, but we'll try once more...

What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", do you have trouble with?

None of it. Which part are you having trouble with?

The Constitution is a document that puts restrictions on what the "Government" can and can not do and is a protection for the PEOPLE and by the People, of Their Rights of Sovereignty over the Government.

Correct, and quite firmly established by both of us. What's the point in repeating it? That's the point on which we agree.

But Saying, "I think we should kill President Bush." is an exception, as much as saying "Blacks and Jews should all be killed".

No, it is not. You are welcome to think that. You are welcome to say you think that. You are not welcome to act upon it. There's a vast difference. And before you try to play your silly semantics again, yes, there are some laws that would agree with what you have stated. They are contrary to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, and therefore void. I have no doubt that the thugs in charge would attempt to enforce them, and I have no doubt they would be wrong to do so. You are, however, correct that my rights cannot override yours. Both of those facts are exactly what I meant above by what I said about rights and privileges. Rights trump laws, else they are not rights. Rights do not trump someone else's rights.

And a parent has the right and duty to protect and to keep ignorant and stupid and harmful @!$%# away from their kids, like porn and ignorant Nazi hatred.

Agreed. What I disagree with, and have been this whole conversation, is that this protection should take the form of the government doing something they may not. What part of that is hard to understand?

Let's go back to the basic question. What changed from your post in #5 to your post in #15 that made you change your stance from 'people should handle this' to 'the government should handle this'?

this protection should take the form of the government doing something they may not

could you reiterate this?

'people should handle this' to 'the government should handle this'?

The Government is merely a tool of the people and acts according to their will, so I don't understand the bases of your confusion.

if i don't agree with removing the rebel flag from public...does that make me a racist?

To most, probably. To me, no.

Some people fly the flag with racist intent. Some fly it as heritage. Having relatives who fought and died for the Confederacy, I don't personally have a problem with the flag, it's a part of my family's history. There's less innocent blood on that flag than the one we fly now. I also understand that the Confederacy didn't fight for slavery, it fought for state rights versus the federal government, which included, but was not limited to, slavery.

thanks, i was hoping someone would have a rational thought. that is true, most people like to over look that point. the irony is now everyone complains about big fed. govt.

Not everyone complains... Sadly, over half of the country still likes it.

What a beautiful narrative of hope, DC. Thanks for sharing that because, as someone who has had mainly white friends because of the area I live in, I can also attest to that experience. People are just people when we know them on a personal level, whatever their colour or creed. It is when we are detached from others and live in fear that we like to make others out to be worse than they are. Very, very sad for us all.

The idea of raising the rent astronomically is priceless. Your postings are truly thought provoking, thank you.

Thank you - all this guy needed was a friend.

Obama is your president, he was elected fair and square (unlike bushy). Learn it, live it, love it.