Man who gave Nazi salute at a basketball match fined £2,500

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Guardian

Man who gave Nazi salute at a basketball match fined £2,500
Petras Lescinskas, 36, arrested during the Lithuania-Nigeria basketball match pleaded guilty to a racially aggravated offence
Duncan Campbell
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 August 2012 15.47 EDT

A Lithuanian man who gave a Nazi salute during an Olympic basketball match has become the first person to be convicted of a racially aggravated offence at the Games and fined £2,500. He was told that his behaviour and that of other Lithuanian fans was "despicable".

Petras Lescinskas, 36, an accountant from Lithuania, was arrested on Tuesday at the Olympic basketball arena during the Lithuania-Nigeria match. Stratford magistrates court was told that he and other Lithuanian supporters had been behaving in such a loud and aggressive manner that other spectators moved away from them. There were "monkey-style noises when Nigerian players had the ball", the court heard.

Becky Owen, prosecuting, told the court. "He was seen to make a Nazi salute," while placing his fingers across his lips. Lescinskas, a married man who had come to London for the Games, told police after his arrest that it was common practice in his country to celebrate in that way and it was something he has been doing for some time the court was told.

He pleaded guilty to a racially aggravated offence under the Public Order Act. He said, through his lawyer, that he was "deeply embarrassed" and "deeply remorseful" about what he had done.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/01/olympics-nazi-salute-basketball-match-fined

---

[center][/center]

[riverbendviewgal]

1. good he was fined

If he does not pay, he is jailed 28 days....Good.

[Missycim]

67. I am just thankful

I don't live in a country where people like you cheer on someone getting fined/jailed for an stupid form of expression

[riverbendviewgal]

73. A Nazi salute is not a stupid expression - it is an EVIL one

and too many people died at the hands of people giving that salute, including my Jewish ancestors, You got It?

[RKP5637]

76. +++ 1,000,000 +++ and then some more +++ n/t

[Missycim]

79. Does the salute physically

hurt anyone? I am sorry your feelings are hurt but people have a right in the USA to do a stupid expression. (no its not evil, look up the word context and get back to me) In the context of the story he was stupid, if the guy was at a nazi rally then it might be considered evil.

[Liber T. Anjustis]

85. Jail for lifting his hand, good grief

.

[Pacafishmate]

86. Censorship is never right.

Jailing someone over an expression, no matter how vile, is contemptible.

[bluestateguy]

2. Their country, their rules.

Not a rule I would favor for the US, but their country, their rules.

[jonthebru]

7. It is hate and harassment

plain and simple. the judge did right.

[Renew Deal]

9. The judge did right for their laws

Hate is protected speech in the US.

[Renew Deal]

65. This is correct

[Iggo]

3. Hooo-BOY!

How ya likin' our Constitution now, kids?

[Scootaloo]

6. I dunno.

A few fines for being a racist fuckhead might do a lot of people some good.

[Renew Deal]

10. How about a few fines for being a liberal?

[Scootaloo]

13. Okay, let's try that.

First, define the limitations of "liberal."
Next, explain how liberalism causes societal harm on the scale of bigotry.

Go on, let's play.

[Renew Deal]

21. It's up to whoever is judging speech to define these things.

Many conservatives believe that liberal ideas "cause societal harms." So who is to judge which speech should be acceptable? Do you really want people being punished for political views?

[Scootaloo]

23. So you believe the strictures regarding bigotry in Europe are totally arbitrary?

I imagine that the governments of Europe and the people who support them are fully cogent of what their strictures are about, what they're for, and are fully capable of changing the rules if they wish. It's not a matter of what someone "thinks" is harmful. it's a matter of what is demonstrably harmful.

In the US, you understand that not all speech is classed as "protected." Slander, libel, intimidation, and several other categories of speech are not protected by the first amendment. What, in your opinion as defender, makes bigoted speech worthy of such protection?

[Renew Deal]

26. 1st 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."

Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”
<snip>

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=all

It has nothing to do with my opinion. In the US hate speech is protected speech. The problem we get into when we ban speech is that todays protected speech could be tomorrows crime. It's just a matter of who the judge is.

In the US that guy would have been thrown out of the arena, but he wouldn't get fined for it.

[Scootaloo]

48. No, you're not answering the question

Why does hate speech deserve 1st amendment protection? Again, you can easily see that the 1st amendment is not absolute, as forms of speech like libel, sedition, and threats are not considered protected by the 1st amendment.

So.

Why should hate speech be given such protection?

[RobinA]

50. Constitutional Protection

isn't a prize given out for well-behaved speech. Speech doesn't EARN protection, it has it unless it is of a type for which an exception to free speech protection has been carved out. So nobody has to say, in this country, why speech should be protected, they have to make a good argument why it shouldn't be.

[Scootaloo]

54. Fair enough

Hate speech is a usually form of intimidation; It's an implicit threat not just against an individual, but against a community of people based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Free reign of such rhetoric has a proven history of causing self-propagation in groups; The rhetoric grows more hateful and more popular until it results in violence, or until a third party takes an action to curb it.

Our legal system understands this; it's the basis of our laws on hate crimes. Hateful rhetoric used while committing another crime ups the penalty for that crime. In essence, we do give monetary fines and incarceration for bigoted speech, provided there's another crime as well. Is there a need for an assault or vandalism of the bigotry to "count"?

Again, we have laws against slander, libel, and intimidation - and very nearly every ounce of bigoted rhetoric falls into one of those categories. The difference is that it targets groups instead of individuals. But so long as we're giving corporations protections equal to the individual, why not give the same consideration to communities?

[John Frum]

62. Depends on how it is worded

The waters are muddy.

You can say. "all of that race are stupid and lazy"

But you cant say, "we need to kill all the people from that race."

If your statement calls for a violation of someone else/another groups civil liberties then you can get in trouble.

[Ash_F]

47. How is racism comparable to Liberalism?

Conservatism is comparable to Liberalism.

Maybe compare racism to religious bigotry or gender discrimination and we can have a serious discussion.

[RobinA]

51. Both are Ideologies

Both can result in thought and in speech. The whole POINT of protecting speech is that it can't be limited by people who don't happen to like it. Protecting speech has nothing to do with whether the speech is desireable or not.

[Ash_F]

53. Not comparable in the way you described at all.

Racial hate propaganda results in movements that get people, sometimes thousands, sometimes millions, killed. Neither conservatism nor liberalism on their own do this.

[LanternWaste]

61. Being escorted into a 'free speech zone' some years ago allowed me to realize

Meh.

Being escorted into a 'free speech zone' some years ago allowed me to realize that the differences in speech laws throughout the industrialized west is different merely in small degrees.

But yeah... God Bless American Exceptionalism and all that crap.

[Bucky]

4. Until I read the context, I thought the punishment went too far.

It wasn't an isolated incident, an impression that headlines tend to give sometimes. It was the crowning achievement on a wide range of intolerable behavior. I'm still not sure this wasn't a violation of free speech rights--something that should be enjoyed by everyone in every country. Free speech is an inalienable right. The racist fans should've been tossed out of the stadium for un-Olympic like behavior. But fining a guy for expressing intolerable ideas seems like a violation of his natural rights.

I can't agree with the idea that the fine is only "their country, their rules." He harmed no one and shouldn't be prosecuted under law. He was a sleezy punk and should've been ejected for his incivility, but that's entirely different than fining and jailing a man for having obnoxious ideas.

[grantcart]

8. Every soveriegn country has the right to draw the line between hate speech and free speech.

It wasn't isolated. Police were called and undercover police sat in the vicinity to see what they were doing

She said she did not accept that what he had done was acceptable in Lithuania. He was told that he would serve 28 days in prison if he failed to pay the fine.

Undercover police were at the basketball arena after complaints about the behaviour of Lithuanian fans in their previous match against Argentina on Sunday.

[ZombieHorde]

68. "Every soveriegn country has the right"

Where does that right come from?

[grantcart]

69. It is inherent in the word soveriegn.

a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.

[ZombieHorde]

70. So, rights come from labels? nt

[grantcart]

71. Meaning comes from words

The word soveriegn is self defined, the country of Lithuania is as soverign as the United States in practical terms it comes from its ability to establish a governing entity, pass laws and enforce those laws.

You however have the right, as an American, to give partonizing lectures to other soveriegn countries on how they should administer their civil code and run their country. You have the right to condescendingly tell them that self expression is an absolute right that is soveriegn in individuals and not holding to the state as is the American (mis)perception. They will listen knowing that 'fighting words' or words that incite violence or screaming 'fire' in a theater in fact are not absolute in American and that Americans have drawn lines between the right to make civil speech and the absolute right to make any speech at any time, just not the same lines as they have in Europe, for historical reasons.

Having lived abroad for a couple of decades I can give you the typical European, though not specific to Lithuanian response;

"When your country has provided its people with the same level of personal freedom that we enjoy, specifically the freedom to seek medical attention without regard the ability to pay, or the freedom to walk down any street in any city at any time without the fear of being shot, then please come to our country and lecture us on your more perfect understanding of individual freedom. Until then we are quite able to establish a freer, more civilized country that embodies more personal freedom than you have in America and would prefer not to have to listen to your empty words".

[ZombieHorde]

72. My interest in talking with you wasn't to tell other countries what to do.

I don't really care about that guy or his fine.

My interest is in cultivating an objective view of human rights.

[grantcart]

74. There is no totally objective view of human rights

If you live in a country that has suffered millions of deaths because of people that give a Nazi salute then you will define that differently than a country that doesn't really know the background.

But the point made in the above reply is still relevent.

Every other developed country in the world sees the right to see a doctor as a much more important human freedom or human right than some political extremist's hate speech.

In your question I don't see anything close to cultivating an 'objective view of human rights' but a further attempt to objectify an "American POV of human rights" and apply that on other systems with other cultural and historical experiences.

Again the European reply would be "thanks for working on your 'objective view of human rights' but please work on getting your country from the bottom rung of developed countries on the human rights issues then we would be happy to simply learn from your example rather than listening to your prattle about 'objective view of human rights'. Nothing is more cringe inducing than living abroad and listening to the visiting American diplomat/politician giving advice on human rights while the polite hosts smile politely wondering how a bastion of human rights is the only country that rations out medical care on the basis how many dollars you have in your hand.

[ZombieHorde]

78. "There is no totally objective view of human rights"

I agree.

In your question I don't see anything close to cultivating an 'objective view of human rights' but a further attempt to objectify an "American POV of human rights" and apply that on other systems with other cultural and historical experiences.

Are you sure you are not confusing someone else's reply with my replies? I have neither attacked nor supported either the American or European view of human rights.

[Confusious]

14. Seems you've been listening to Right wing talking points

Which are wrong.

There are no "natural rights," nor are there "inalienable rights" as people have said, and I've seen said around here. (even though it says it in the declaration doesn't make it true)

We derive "rights" from the people forming a government and charging the government to protect those rights.

Other countries have decided they don't want to have those sorts of rights, so they don't. As an example, you can be charged with hate speech in most countries in Europe. the NAZI party is also outlawed in germany, for instance. you couldn't do that in the States.

for most of human history, most people didn't have those rights, and a lot of people still don't, China for example. Most Muslim countries you can be charged with blasphemy.

[Bucky]

28. Are you really arguing that the Declaration of Independence is right wing talking points?

Where did you get this? What you're arguing against is rooted in the Enlightenment and is the foundation for liberal democracy. There's nothing "right wing" about saying "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." (Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin were criticized for not saying "God" at the time, but preferred the vague, more flexible language). That same Declaration goes on to say "...that governments are instituted among men to protect those rights."

Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, along with every major thinker in American history (Paine, MLK, everybody named Roosevelt, etc.), would tell you that people create governments in order to protect their natural rights (life, liberty, etc.). Governments don't create rights; they only protect them or they fail to do their jobs as governments, ie, become tyrannies.

If you're arguing that fundamental human rights are derived from the government, rather than from the fact of being a human being, then you're flying in the face of the entire liberal tradition going back to Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. If governments, rather than nature, grant rights, then the government is an appropriate instrument for the denial and restriction of fundamental rights.

Just because China and Germany restrict certain free speech rights doesn't argue against the fact that governments don't have the right to do so. China isn't exactly a model I'd ever use for what a government ought to do with respect to the rights of dissidents. I'm not sure why you thought I'd find that example persuasive. I know why Germany restricts depictions of Naziism, and I'm sympathetic, but it's still wrong. But you can't kill bad ideas with censorship; you can only kill them with better ideas.

The right to free speech is not an American right; it's a fundamental human right that the American government happens to (imperfectly) respect. Again, I think the Olympics organizers were well within their rights to expel those Lithuanians for displaying hateful ideas. But when you drag the government into it, you shift the argument away from "are their ideas right or wrong?" to basic question of "does a person have the right to express wrong ideas?" Those are entirely different questions.

Like Frank Zappa said, if you don't believe in free speech for people you disagree with, you don't believe in free speech. With respect, I think you're on the wrong side of that question.

[Confusious]

32. No, I wasn't saying that

they seem to think that Gun rights are also natural rights. Of course, you couldn't have gun rights if there were no guns could you?

My view is if it's a natural right, we should have had that right from the being of civilization, and everyone should have seen it.

of course, we didn't, and no one did until 250 years ago, so it isn't a natural right. We have to fight for it all the time. Even today, there are still people trying to stop other people from speaking their mind.

I also didn't say it was the government that these rights came from, it was the people setting up governments to protect these rights. if the government doesn't allow the rights the people want, then they have every right to overthrow that government.

As far as China, I was using it as an example of a country that does not allow free speech, even today, so it cannot possibly be a "natural right" that everyone sees.

Personally, I believe in freedom of speach. I don't agree with some things people say, but they should have a right to say it.

I just don't think it's a "natural right" as explained above. Besides which, there's a long page on Wikipedia about discussions about natural rights. not every philosopher agrees there is such a thing. Edmund Burke, to pharaphrase, called it "hogwash."

oh, and the guy should have been evicted from the game and not allowed back in to anythinghome for A.being an ass and
B.being a fucking moron. (NAZIs would have though of him as trash)

[Bucky]

39. I see where you're coming from.

I just don't think it's a "natural right" as explained above. Besides which, there's a long page on Wikipedia about discussions about natural rights. not every philosopher agrees there is such a thing. Edmund Burke, to pharaphrase, called it "hogwash."

Ah, yes. Edmund Burke. You know what his sobriquet is, don't you? Google [font size="4"]Edmund Burke father of[/font] and see what you get.

Good thought provoking read here:
http://fourstory.org/features/story/edmund-burke-father-of-modern-day-conservatism/

Another from the other side of the aisle if you got the time:
http://bornagainredneck.blogspot.com/2007/04/edmund-burke-father-of-modern.html

And this one just to see where Burke's ideas lead to today
http://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org/edmundburke.htm

I add all of these in hopes that you see how off target it is to accuse me of spouting talking points from the wingnuts.

I don't particularly reference the NRA when discussing civil and natural rights. I'm a history teacher and at all levels of history, secondary through college, we lean on the thinkers of the Enlightenment to understand where America got it right and where America got it wrong in its long windy history.

What other "natural rights" do we have that we don't know about?

See the 9th Amendment. Right wingers like Alberto Gonzales and Robert Bork have long argued that there is, for example, no right to privacy in the US because it's not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. But beyond the fact that the 9th states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," they're wrong in broader context. James Madison, although called "father of the Constitution," was opposed to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in 1788. His reasoning was that if the government listed what rights the people had, then later tyrants would argue that the people don't have any other rights. To his mind, the Constitution existed to limit the government, not to limit the rights of the people, and that such a listing of rights would be used to undermine liberty.

The Ninth Amendment states that we may continually be discovering new rights. For instance the fight over Wikileaks and the challenges to the Freedom of Information Act are examples of history showing us that we have a right to the free flow of information and a right to have a transparent government. They'd've never figured that out in 1787. But history is full of surprises.

they seem to think that Gun rights are also natural rights.

I think they are, after a fashion. Language of "well regulated militia aside, this is an overly particular expression of the right of any person to defend their home. I think that's a pretty basic right. I can certainly how, 12 years after Lexington and Concord, people strongly believed in the right to keep a gun in the house. But of course a gun in the house is a far more effective protection against tyranny if you're a member of a community militia. The Framers had a far more collectivist understanding of the Second Amendment than we do today. But society has evolved a more individualistic ethic in the past half century. Ironically, one of the principal voices that caused that social evolution was Martin Luther King, Jr, who changed the dialog on human rights in the country to an individual-focused understanding. Not that King was a gun rights advocate, but he did fundamentally change the English language in the way we understand rights. You can see his imprint on every corner of the globe today.

I personally would like to see better gun regulation in this country. But the debate's a bit hobbled by the 2nd Amendment.

[Confusious]

42. Sorry abut the right wing thing

Habit I guess, when I read your post all I could see was "rights from god," which twists my guts like nothing else. Why didn't god give them to us at the start of civilization, not 250 years ago?

After thinking about it a bit, there are certain things that we all want and have had, in some small part or other throughout history

Freedom
Justice

Freedom could be defined as many things, most of history as "not being a slave"
Justice, Hammurabi had his code.

We've expanded freedom to include speech. It's up to others to see that as a good thing. Most do.

I guess if you look at it that way, freedom of speech could be an extension of the basic right of freedom (Not to be a slave). Maybe in another 250 year everyone on earth will see it as a basic right.(Participate in)

[Tunkamerica]

60. I believe the idea is that the rights were given at birth and taken away by governments/people

who thought they knew better.

I find it amazing that you don't find this to be a basic right given at birth to all people. You think it will take 250 years to gain the right to free speech that we've had for 200 and some odd years?

Perhaps a freshman civics class is in order.

[Confusious]

66. Maybe you should review what the discussion was about

And what I said.

I'll give you a little review:

Not everyone in the world has the right to freedom of speech. 250 years ago, you could be thrown in jail for speaking out against the rulers everywhere in the world.

Now, if it was a natural right (a right ingrained, like freedom or justice, which even monkies understand) shouldn't we have had that freedom 250 years ago?

My personal opinion is is that we form governments to protect rights, some not so obvious, like freedom of speech. If we don't like the way in which those governments are protecting those rights, we have every right to overthrow them.



Everyone here seems to decry the lack of critical thinking that seems to be going on in this country. Unless of course, you disagree with them about something. Then you're an idiot, don't understand, or need to take a class.

If it was physics, I'd agree. That's provable facts. "natural rights" isn't a fact, it's philosophy.

[Tunkamerica]

81. I believe there's a basic misunderstanding here.

First off: I don't believe I read your previous posts in the thread, just most recent. That was my mistake.

Second: I don't believe monkeys know justice and freedom any more than they know algebra.

Third: Just because oppressive governments were/are the norm does not make speech less of a basic right.

Fourth: You say that freedom is a basic right... am I the only one getting the irony?

And finally: of course it's philosophy... no one ever said it was anything else. It's the philosophy of freedom, rights, the human condition, and government. It can't be "more" than that, but what it is is just as or more important than physics.

[Confusious]

82. If you capture a wild animal does it not try to escape?

Or at least fight for a while to get away? That's what I mean by freedom.

Slaves in the Roman empire revolted. They weren't after money, or power or glory. Just freedom. And not freedom of speech or privacy like we have now.

We've seen that the right to free speech is a good thing, we've expanded the rights that people have. The government is there to protect those rights. Some peoples, like the poles in this case, haven't decided they want that right. They'll come around.

Monkeys and justice:

http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

84. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution

and the Declaration of Independence when you get right down to it is the self-justification of tax evasion and treason; the only thing that makes the American colonists of 1776 one bit different to the Confederacy is that the colonists didn't lose. And Jefferson had no original ideas; the whole theory of "Natural Rights" comes from John Locke.

And arguing for the universalism of American ideals just makes you sound silly. Absolute freedom of speech is not a fundamental human right. Various countries which are not the US have freedom of speech within limits; Holocaust denial, for instance, is punishable by five years' imprisonment in Germany. In a civil society freedom of speech is constrained by various considerations; speech which is harmful, or injurious, is frequently restricted (see: libel and slander laws, for instance). If laws curtailing freedom of speech in the specific instance of defaming an individual are just fine then why not laws that restrict speech defamatory of groups of people? This is the principle followed by most non-US countries, where the right of free speech is balanced against the harm caused by some forms of expression.

[FiveGoodMen]

30. "Most Muslim countries you can be charged with blasphemy"

Do you approve of that?

Why or why not?

[Confusious]

33. No

if you can't take criticism, then you're probably full of shit.

Also free speach grounds.

[FiveGoodMen]

35. If you don't believe there are any natural rights

then how can you disapprove of what anyone does?

You pretty much have to choose a few axioms before forming any judgment on the appropriateness of anyone's behavior.

If those axioms aren't considered to be natural in any sense then they're arbitrary.

If you're okay with arbitrary decisions on what rights people have, then you're really just advocating that the powerful should be able to do whatever they want.

[Confusious]

44. I disapprove of people taking drugs

Even though I think they should be legalized. It's not because they're illegal, it's because they fuck you up.

I don't believe there's a natural right to take drugs, it's just the drug war has been a failure and other countries who have legalized have had more success.

The basis of what we approved of or disapprove of is, for the most part, not based on anything, just the times we live in. if you lived in england at the turn of the last century, and didn't have facial hair, people thought you a criminal.

the only things are common over the centuries is crime and punishment. The punishment part has always been up in the air. Most times it was an eye for an eye. Only later did we take peoples freedom away when they committed crimes.

Another would be the desire for freedom, which most times ment nothing better then not being a slave.

As a society we've decided that freedom of speech is a good thing. It keeps governments in line, and allows people to speak their minds, and allows the free flow of ideas. It's worked pretty well, and everyone seems happy with it.

Where you got "the powerful should be able to do what they want" I have no idea. I never said or implied anything of the sort.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. racist pig

[secondvariety]

11. Not suprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Lithuania_by_Nazi_Germany

[4th law of robotics]

12. Free speech shouldn't be an American thing

their country their rules and all but not something I will cheer for.

[Confusious]

15. Most countries in Europe

You can be charged with hate speech.

Germany it'll get you a short prison stay.

[Bucky]

29. I don't understand your sarcasm.

I think there should be complete freedom of expression (provided there's no harm, of course, as with the "Shouting Fire in a theater" cases). I even support it for (*gasp*) people I hate. But I think the fear that people have of truly free speech is understandable. I think it's one of those fears in life that it's good for everyone to overcome (like the fear of heights, the fear of going to the dentist, or the fear of asking Susie out for a pizza Saturday night). But allowing people that we deeply disagree with to express their opinions in full, and the fear of seeing society won over by those ideas, are perfectly understandable.

Unless, of course, your sarcasm note means you don't think people should be free to express even bad, hateful ideas. In that case, you are wrong and Thomas Jefferson is right.

[4th law of robotics]

20. I know

but that doesn't mean I support it.

[Ter]

38. And most countries in Europe suck

n/t

[Iggo]

17. "Their country, their rules"...

...is the overriding and absolutely most important thing you can remember when traveling abroad.

He's just lucky it's England. A fine and a reprimand. No prison. No hacked off body parts.

[4th law of robotics]

19. I get it and I won't spit on the street in Singapore

for instance.

That doesn't mean I have to cheer on their courts when they bust someone for doing that.

They have a right to outlaw whatever they want. That doesn't make it right.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

22. If the Olympics were held in Germany, the punishment would be 100X severe.

[Iggo]

34. You betcha.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. It had a puppet regime, that some still sympathise with

In a controversial move causing anguish among Holocaust survivors, Lithuania's Jewish community and the Association of Lithuanian Jews in Israel, the "prime minister" of Lithuania's 1941 Nazi puppet government will be glorified, reinterred with full honors and subject of a commemorative conference at Vytautas Magnus University this week.

The remains of Juozas Brazaitis (Ambrazevicius ), who died in the United States in 1974, will be re-interred from Putnam, Connecticut, to the Church of the Resurrection in Kaunas. En route, he will be honored in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, in a ceremony slated for May 17.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center's chief Nazi-hunter, Holocaust historian Dr. Efraim Zuroff, described the move as "an absolute outrage."

Adv. Joseph A. Melamed, chairman of the Association of Lithuanian Jews in Israel, told Haaretz: "One should resist this action. The government of Ambrazevicius was in charge of the murder of the Jews of Lithuania."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/glorifying-a-nazi-collaborator-in-lithuania-1.430508

[Blue_Tires]

25. wow...Even Di Canio got a 10k fine

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/4544008.stm

[FunnyChris]

27. why?

didn't the nazi's invade them in WW2 its like why are Russians Nazis it doesn't make sense

[Bucky]

31. Well, don't expect a guy making the nazi salute to be terribly sensible.

Racism is a human problem. Lithuanians are human. And I'd bet there was some boozin' involved before the ugliness started.

[hack89]

43. Over 50,000 Lithuanians fought for Germany in WWII

Both the Russians and the Germans invaded Lithuania - the Russians actually invaded first and many Lithuanians viewed the Germans as liberators.

http://www.feldgrau.com/lith.html

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. So that's the way bigots celebrate.

[Ter]

37. Didn't Hitler copy that salute from Mussolini?

If he did, it's more of a fascist salute than a Nazi salute.

[may3rd]

40. Syrians use that salute today

Same thing goes for people in the Gaza strip and Hezbollah characters I have noticed in videos

edit to ad video
first two shots of the video;

&feature=related

[Kaleva]

41. And the facists adpopted it from artwork and movies

While it's sometimes called "the Roman salute", there is no evidence that the ancient Romans actually used it themselves. In 1784, Jacques-Louis David's painting "The Oath of the Horatii " is considered the first instance of where the salute is depicted.

[and-justice-for-all]

45. Its not a nazi salute..

they of course used it and so did the US in its history, but that salute comes from ROME and not NAZISM.

[Iggo]

46. Yeah, I'm sure he was emulating the Romans.

[and-justice-for-all]

56. I was just pointing out the historical aspects of the salute...

like the swastika, not Nazi either, but native American. Its a sign of good fortune.

[RobinA]

52. Interestingly,

I just learned this on a long ride home this weekend from North Carolina to Pennsylvania. My passenger and I were wondering why the flag of England is called the "Union Jack." In looking that up on her phone she came across the history of putting our right hand over the heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Amazing what you can learn with 10 hours to kill and a smart phone.

[and-justice-for-all]

55. LOL...oh yeah..nt

[panzerfaust]

83. OK. It is just the salute used by the NAZIs

But is a salute which now - ever since the master-race subjugated Europe and murdered millions - is, in fact, identified as the NAZI salute, irrespective of historical origins.

Burning the enemies of the Reich, Auschwitz 1944.

Just as athlete's numbers are sometimes retired with them, so that particular salute should have vanished with the NAZIs.



In the modern world, such a salute has only the meaning of celebrating racial intolerance, hatred, and fascism.

Berlin Olympics, 1936

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

49. He's lucky the fashion police weren't there.

He could have been charged with a felony.

[Nye Bevan]

57. Always amusing to see people turn against the First Amendment

when they realize that it gives people the right to be big ol' meanies.

[Kurovski]

58. Oh my

As a terrible meany I can hardly wait to spread the "news" that my competition at work is a pedophile and a pig fucker.

[Nye Bevan]

59. The Firsr Amendment does not protect you from a slander lawsuit (nt)

[LanternWaste]

63. Less amusing when nuanced discussion of it is minimized and petulantly interpreted as opposition

"Always amusing to see people turn against the First Amendment..."

Less amusing when nuanced discussion of it is minimized and petulantly interpreted as opposition to the First Amendment...

[fascisthunter]

75. Dumbass

ehhh-duhhh

[JoshRuiz94]

77. I think the guy is a real asshat but is it illegal to be an asshat? nt

[Ter]

80. The freak with the red and black perm should be fined as well

Note to weirdos. You're not cool.