Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Linkster
First off - I have no agenda - as a matter of fact I happen to agree with some of natvans programs - just not where they came from. I can understand that some might look at the white-washed (pun not intended) version that they put out now-a-days for publicity reasons. I also know what they came from back when they were the nat. youth alliance and published "attack". Just because they have this clean appearence now doesnt mean their ideology (pretty well documented in Turners "diary") isnt the same. Remember this is just my opinion and the nice thing (as docemented in their own "free speech") is that I am entitled to my opinion and to voice it publicly.
|
The thing is that you labelled NatAll a terrorist organization based on their literature. Fictional literature, at that, as it turns out. You can have any opinion that you want, but when you publicly accuse someone of breaking a law (the label of terrorist is an umbrella term for a range of acts - all illegal), without proof, and with malice or foreseeable malignal effects for the accusee, you have stepped over the outer perimeter defining free speech because then you are endulging in libel.
I should mention that I wouldn't normally whine about some fighting words and heated temperatures, but the mentality underlying what you wrote, the one where controversial thought or political opposition is "terrorist", "illegal" - it really gets to me as I find it the most sinister and cowardly concept imaginable.