Gothamist: More From Faux Fuhrer

Not Amused

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 06:35:41 -0500

Lighten the F*ck up people !!! It was a halloween costume . Did he do the smart thing ? No. Did he know full well that if he wore that to school that the administrators wouldn't have allowed him into the building ? Yes. Which is why he didn't wear it to school instead waited till he got into the building and changed into it . He knew this wouldn't sit well with his teachers and that's why he did it . It's called rebelling against authority , We've all done it at one point in our lives so stop with all the moaning, and bitching .

J.B.

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:02:04 -0500

That Thunderbird's a mean wine.

Ando

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:04:44 -0500

I hate Illinois Nazis

Mike

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:23:15 -0500

Just like the Fred Phelps sign-wavers, the KKK marches and those damn Illinois Nazis on parade, the best reaction to this kid would have been complete indifference. Then maybe a simple good old fashioned ass-kicking after school. Blip. Next.

responder to ethos

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:46:18 -0500

"Mussolini has not made the impact that Hitler has, so that costume is not the same." Not according to the Italians here in the U.S. that I know." That would go for Italian Jews as well I am sure. However, the living hell was not in Italy. The metodical plotting of murder and systematic extermination was designed by Germans under Hitler's leadership. Although horror stories exist for Italy's Mussolini. Sorry ethos, it still is not the same impact. Although Mussolini, hooked into Hitler's evil plan, he would not have been a co-leader or Vice President to Adolf. Adolf Hitler and the Germans had their own agenda. Other Europeans were doing the bidding of Germany. The Germans could not concur the world alone, they needed foot soldiers, generally speaking.

dhex

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:54:24 -0500

mh, you had written earlier: "Meredith: you are correct. Freedom is the idealistic concept that goes with democracy. But, you still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Everyone is not free to do as they please. That would be anarchy. There are consequences for using poor judgement. He is facing them." the fire in a crowded theatre exception where one's actions lead to direct harm or incite direct violence. i.e. i can stand on a soapbox and yell "kill the republicans" but i can't go stand on a soapbox next to a bunch of republicans and point at them and yell "kill the republicans" to a crowd of people. (the difference between father mclaughlin in the 1930s and radio stations in rwanda broadcasting the locations of people to be killed, to use a heavy-handed example)

Jack

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:39:38 -0500

I said it before and I'll say it again, the concept that this costume was a parody is just ridiculous. What's the joke? Hey look I'm Charlie Chaplin! Wait! Look! Now I'm Hitler! I do believe that he thought that it was a parody. But it just doesn't translate into anything. He would have been hilarious if he wore a hand-written sign around his neck saying "Will Work For a Better Costume".

don't be a hater

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:22:17 -0500

Oh, welcome. We all love the Jew-hating Walt Disney, but if a Jew dresses up as Hitler on Halloween we all go apeshit and kick him. Was there a war on, or something? I could have sworn we were supposed to do something useful today? No?

k

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:01:48 -0500

I go to the same school as Walter and he's actually a real smart kid, so I wasn't exactly surprised to see him making a statement. Sure, its a pretty strong statement, but its not as big a deal as everyone is making it. Quite a considerable amount of students at our school don't care being that it was only a costume, while the other half is over-reacting. Funny how nobody was offended or said much of anything when someone dressed up as the Ku Klux Klan last year ... and that kid was black, just how this kid is Jewish ....

Not Amused

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:21:19 -0500

*Breathes in sigh of relief* Thank goodness he didn't dress up as a black man . That would be totally going over the line as far as taste was concerned ! Thank god he didn't . Oh well on to real issues. Why did Kellogg's discontinue making the Apple poptarts ? Can anybody here tell me why ?

ethos

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:57:02 -0500

"I did not use the term insite. Check ethos or Tom." FWIW, I have no idea what mh is talking about. MH, if you need clarification with anything I said (and it seems as though you do), please have the nerve/decency to address me directly. Otherwise, stop putting words in my (virtual) mouth.

jojo

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:12:53 -0500

Damn, This is like a high school mock trial. this is a pretty interesting article for once. Good going Gothamist. Finally something a blog is good for. Progressive debate.

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:04:17 -0500

dhex: it would be easier if you would point out the ways that you agree with brandenberg. I did not use the term insite. Check ethos or Tom. However, I will read up on it. Going to the evening blogs. This is the daytime blog for me. Will check you thread on the 3rd.

dhex

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:52:33 -0500

i believe we were speaking of the furor over this furher, as it were. i was trying to find a way to nicely point out that your argument had a big hole in it. did you read up on brandenberg and tinker yet?

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:59:38 -0500

"just because you think it is bullshit doesn't make it so." conversely, etc etc and so forth. [64] Posted by: dhex | November 2, 2006 3:51 PM ___________ That's right.. and don't forget it... If it is bullshit why would you read the blog and wait time with a comment.

dhex

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:51:04 -0500

"just because you think it is bullshit doesn't make it so." conversely, etc etc and so forth.

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:38:09 -0500

mg: "This is a non-story, one more hyped-up distraction concocted by the tabloid press to keep the proles agitated about nonsense while their standard of living and their constitutional rights are being destroyed. Don't take the bait, kids, this is just bullsh*t! " [35] Posted by: mg | November 2, 2006 12:05 PM ________________________ maybe the reason the standard of living and the constitutional rights are being destroyed is because to you everything is a distraction. Therefore, you sit around and complain about the wrong issues. just because you think it is bullshit doesn't make it so.

nanofoam

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:23:18 -0500

#60, black expert: you're certainly not an English/grammar expert. That's fo sho.

ethos

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:27:56 -0500

#56 mh, Oh! o.k., I got it after re-reading both your posts & mine. But I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say about the rebel flags... I wasn't trying to say it was "ok" to display them where they'd have "the least effect," I was trying to say that people who proudly display these flags, like this Walter Pryk w/ his Hiltler costume, are chickenshit, and only parade their symbols of hate and hurt where they think it's safe to do so... in the Confederate case, in the places where there are not enough blacks/people of color to do something about it (or so they think), and in Pryk's case, in a school in a "progressive" city hiding behind the "I was only joking/First Amendment rights" defense. (Again, I say this b/c I notice he didn't have the guts to wear his Hitler costume on the subway.) Also, I'm not saying that the Klansman & the Sikh are getting beaten up by the same people, I was just using the Sikh example to show how that mentality is in everybody -- right or wrong, most people's first response (myself included) is, "react first, ask questions later." In other words, a guy could be walking around in a white sheet with every intention of lampooning the Klan, but within a few minutes he'd probably be explaining his sense of humor through a mouthful of blood.

asked an black expert

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:21:24 -0500

Maybe I missed something in the translation or when I read your thread. Yes I did read your thread. Al Jolson is white and Jewish. The young kid with the costume is white and supposedly Jewish in a school of Jewish kids. My point is this: black people would not have the same reaction from another black person wearing blackface. Blackface means nothing to to most blacks. Except Montel Wiliiams and his former wife. That is because he was with a white women. Look at the clown on Amateur night at the Appollo. It is very close to blackface. Because of what blackface represents to a black person. A young person today would not insite anything but a big laugh form their peirs. They would wear it to make fun of it and to get a laugh for the present problems still here. Not the past.

dhex

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:16:30 -0500

and no, students don't have the same kinds of rights in a school that they would in the street. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District i had a nice post on this issue that gothamist ate. boo!

dhex

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:14:40 -0500

mh: you may wish to familiarize yourself with this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio you are misunderstanding what incitement means in these cases. the kgb bar is a pretty good example of how certain kinds of historical horrors are related to by and large from political and coalitional attitudes. the same folks would probably be very offended by a club gitmo style kitsch bar, for coaltional/emotional reasons.

PM

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:06:45 -0500

One distinction is that he wasn't wearing this costume to a party, or walking down a city street. It was school. School, to me, isn't a democracy. When I was a kid, you're weren't allowed to wear shorts to school. I didn't view that as an infringement of my rights. I saw it as a dress code. Beyond all of that, why does everything have to be such a battle? Couldn't the kid (and his parents) have just said, "You know what? This is upsetting some people, so I won't do it." Not everything has to be a Big Statement. Your radio is too loud on the beach for some people? Turn it down. Same thing, to me.

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:06:17 -0500

ethos, "Yes ethos, and Hitler was only in Europe out of the way of the entire world." You're kidding, right? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here." __________ To clarify, previous to my comment, was it you? Anyway, a person implied that the fact that the confederate flags are hung or flown in a out of the way places in Amierica, where racists live, that it did not have the same affect on a larger scale. Racist are everywhere and the confederate flag is everywhere. My response was sarcastic, by saying that, Europe was also in an out of the way place, away from the rest of the world. Therefore, I sarcasticly implied that the thread must be saying that Hitler's actions would not affect the rest of the world because of it's location. Of course that is absurd. "Also don't think a lone Klansmen would be unharmed here. Not when Sikhs and other folks who can't be even remotely connected with 9/11 are targeted simply b/c of their appearance." __________ What the two represent in America are two completly different concepts. One is a "foreigner" and the other thinks he owns America and the ideas it represents. Sikhs and others are attacked by the same people you say would get beat up, (KKK with confederate flag) Not of of them wear sheets because the mental attitude is what they wear instead of the sheet. You can NOT see what they are thinking. A sheet is too obvious. However, they can't hide because although, they attack in darkness or secluded areas, it is obvious as to what they are thinking. Just because the south is known for the largest KKK uprising and horror, doesn't mean they are not walking around in other parts of the country with just as much hate and contempt for other races.

kristin

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:54:29 -0500

hi 'asked a black expert' - but my point was the same as yours regarding aunt jemima or whoever. plus, i never said that Al Jolson was black. Did you read what i wrote, "It would be a snide nod to the history of discrimination of the past." That being Al Jolson in blackface.

horseface

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:21:47 -0500

The reason blacks would not be offended is because "minstrelsy" tv still exists. (Emphasis mine) Um....? I assume that's a typo?

asked a black expert

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:20:31 -0500

"...g - that would only be the equivalent if he were black and wore an Al Jolson blackface costume, since he is, in fact, Jewish..." "...And if that happened (a black kid wore that to a predominantly black school), i bet no one would kick his ass. It would be a snide nod to the history of discrimination of the past. For some reason, this case is not being taken this way..." [24] Posted by: kristin | November 2, 2006 11:40 AM ___________________________________________ Kristin, You might want to check your history. Hello! Al Jolson was Jewish not black. There were other actors like Al Jolson and they were black. In case you did not know, black people wore black face to MAKE FUN OF white people. Al Jolson is not a good example because he thought he was experiencing an emoitonal equivalent to oppressed blacks. You could say he thought that he was empathizing. So he is not seen as an evil person. A black person might wear Amos or Andy, or Aunt Jamima, or a slave costume and exagerate it. They WOULD make fun of it, not embrace it and offend their peirs. That is why they WOULD NOT kick his ass. They would probably think that he was cool OR hilarious for thinking of it. It wouldn't make news either. ________________________

ABC Girl

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:15:45 -0500

Hey, how do you use the bold feature when posting on the Gothamist site? Thanks,

ryan

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:13:09 -0500

Every time I've seen this in print, someone brings up Mel Brooks. Mel Brooks, as it was said earlier, lampooned Hitler. This kid did not lampoon Hitler. Does it mean he actually digs Hitler? No. But to profess this absolute surprise over how people are reacting...why is that a surprise to him? Am I offended? No. Do I find this kid to be relatively ignorant in costume choice? Yes. I mean, not for nothing, but anything concerning Hitler is pretty much played out. He could have dressed in drag with a video camera at his side, and been Jeanine Pirro.

free hat

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:06:24 -0500

"Isn't arbitrarily deciding what's offensive and what isn't a little like fascism?" No!!! However, reminding someone that their behavior offends you is not fascism. Wow, did you miss the point. Going up to the kid and telling him your offended is fine. Assaulting him is well, assault and is criminal. Locking up criminals that steel you shit or kill your friends is not fascism. Uh, what does this have to do with anything said here today? It is called bringing order to an out of control group of people for the sake of the majority. By threatening them with violence if they don't fall into line with your way of thinking? Even George Bush doesn't do that on a good day.

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:01:04 -0500

"that would only be the equivalent if he were black and wore an Al Jolson blackface costume, since he is, in fact, Jewish." "I agree. Also, minstrelsy remains phenomenally offensive because racism against blacks is still such a raw, unfinished, contemporary topic. Hitler, on the other hand, is a caricature of extreme and defeated evil, and, if anything, mocking him only defeats him further." ___________________________________ What are you talking about? Blacks did wear black face back during the turn of the century and there after. Ben Vareen also paid homeage to a black face "actor" in his Broadway skit. There is no phenomenum here. The reason blacks would not be offended is because "minstrelsy" tv still exists. The offense is happening on a daily basis. You don't see Hitler paraded around on a daily basis.

ethos

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:59:14 -0500

"Yes ethos, and Hitler was only in Europe out of the way of the entire world." You're kidding, right? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. "Mussolini has not made the impact that Hitler has, so that costume is not the same." Not according to the Italians here in the U.S. that I know. "Why else would we welcome Mussolini's granddaughter to America." We've also afforded asylum to Fidel Castro's daughter. The sins of the fathers, etc. etc. "The Klansman with a rebel flag would have been looked at and watched closely, but probably not harmed in NYC. There is too much apathy in NYC." Hope you're wrong about the apathy... not that I condone violence against someone whose views I disagree with (and I agree that raking this kid over the coals without trying to educate him serves no purpose). Also don't think a lone Klansmen would be unharmed here. Not when Sikhs and other folks who can't be even remotely connected with 9/11 are targeted simply b/c of their appearance. I agree with #35, though. I'm afraid the only lesson this dickhead (and others like him) will learn is if you wear a Hitler costume on Halloween you'll get a day off from school and your pic on the front page of the Post. Thanks, Rupert!

S.D.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:53:46 -0500

Tom Said: Trouble for him is, he's responsible for his actions. The 1st Amendment doesn't says he's free from criticism or from the consequences. Wow, that's a frightening interpretation of the First Amendment. "You can say whatever you want, but, shit, we can arrest you if you say the wrong thing. Deal with the consequences." Tom, I hardly said that. In fact I did say: "It works both ways, People are free to walk up a speak their mind and be held accountable too." Is your monitor broken? Did you not Notice I turned on Bold for the word speak? Back on topic, Anything other than for people to speak (Note the Bold highlight, Yet again), IMO, would be unacceptable. Feel free to screw this up too.

Kristin

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:53:28 -0500

When it comes down to it, a person can dress however he or she wants. With this case, there is the added layer of what the school's authority is. But if a person wanted to dress up as Hitler every single day and walk around, he can't be stopped. My point is, who cares? Are you going to let one person's jilted thinking get you so upset? If so, the only fault here is letting other people destroy your own serenity.

pangolin

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:49:15 -0500

"...minstrelsy remains phenomenally offensive because racism against blacks is still such a raw, unfinished, contemporary topic..." so i guess anti-Semitism is over, huh? i'm also guessing that the person who wrote the above is not jewish. I am, just like the first time I said I was, and while it doesn't give me a license to tell every other Jew how to think, I've had vandalism, name-calling, and punches in the face just like other Jews on the planet, but Anti-Semitism is mostly the realm of idiots and sub-idiots. I still think the icon of Hitler deserves to be pooped on as much as possible. He deserves disrespect, not reverence. I also find Anti-Semites, especially those in America, to be largely jokes. Elsewhere? Completely different story. Crypto-anti-Semitism in some far-left and far-right circles? Another completely different story. But actual Nazis? May their stay in Sheol be marked by the overheard, muffled, derisive laughter from the living world. You disagree? That's fine. But it's not as simple as Anti-Semitism being over or not, or whether or not I'm a good Jew. To make myself clear - wearing a Hitler costume to high school, even as a joke, is a bad idea, and if you're offended, well, you're not entirely without reason. But I think the brighter path is to see that, in America, in New York, Hitler is a fucking yuk. Are you also up in arms about Kim Jong-Il in Team America? The Charles-Manson-as-Lassie skit from The Ben Stiller Show? What about KGB Bar? Jews were targeted in the USSR as well, among millions of others. Surely an entire business based on Soviet kitsch warrants your attention far more than one high school kid making a joke in poor taste?

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:46:11 -0500

Tom: "But, you still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre." "Not applicable here."...wrong. Yes, it applies here when used in the primary context. I was talking about the freedoms we DO NOT have. You are not "free" to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Yelling fire has nothing to do with riots. Yelling fire has to do with causing panic. Just because no person stampeeds or gets killed doesn't mean that emotions are not damaged and there was no panic or potential for panic. ___________ statement "One incites a riot and a situation where lots of people can get injured or killed. The other is a F*CKING HALLOWEEN COSTUME." ___________ response aah daah Yeah!!! Actions here are speaking louder then words, hence the costume. ________________ question "Everything you do offends someone, at what volume does it become a "bad thing"? " _________________ answer when you cause pain and suffering.....aah daah Yeah!!!

dhex

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:41:32 -0500

hitler was responsible for the pacific theatre? would tojo be an offensive costume if worn by a japanese student? what about if it was a white student dressed as tojo? or a black student wearing white pancake makeup and a fake moustache?

Bob Loblaw

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:36:15 -0500

Hitler declared war on the allied nations during WWII. He was not only responsible for the millions of jewish deaths, but also responsible for the deaths of everyone else. here are some figures about the loss of life during WWII: Military Deaths-Total: 24,500,000 Civilian Deaths-Total: 32,330,000 Holocaust (Jews)-Total: 5,800,000 Total deaths during WWII: 62,500,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties I would say, dressing as Adolf Hitler is bad taste and disrupts the educational process of any institution, public or private. It also does not fall under any constitutional right in a public school, i.e. institution. 62.5 million people... that's some parody.

t

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:29:55 -0500

"...minstrelsy remains phenomenally offensive because racism against blacks is still such a raw, unfinished, contemporary topic..." so i guess anti-Semitism is over, huh? i'm also guessing that the person who wrote the above is not jewish. i love it when whites opine about how blacks should respond to racism and when non-jews tell jews it's all in good fun.

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0500

"Isn't arbitrarily deciding what's offensive and what isn't a little like fascism?" No!!! However, reminding someone that their behavior offends you is not fascism. Locking up criminals that steel you shit or kill your friends is not fascism. It is called bringing order to an out of control group of people for the sake of the majority.

Meredith

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:13:39 -0500

if I recall, the producers was never really one of brook's more popular films. And if I recall the premise of the film was they could make more money producing a flop than a hit. and again it has nothing to do with "PC". you and the kid should bunk together. Oh, right, that's why it was made into a hugely popular Broadway production starring two huge film stars. Because it wasn't popular. Or funny. Nor did it have any merit. Nor did the people staging the Broadway show believe it would be at all appealing to Americans. That's why they did it. The premise is that they thought it was going to be a flop, but it ended up being a hit!

Hunter Slaton

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:11:50 -0500

The fact of the matter is that, stupid or not, this kid has the right to wear a Hitler costume if he feels like it: just like the KKK has to hold a rally, neo-Nazis to wear swastika clothing, and so on. It's called the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." That's all there is to it. We may not like what the kid wore, and he may be an idiot, but he has the right to wear what he wants and be an idiot. As Beatrice Hall wrote, paraphrasing Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:10:16 -0500

"Sure people still fly the Confederate flag but that's more or less only in racist areas of the country where they feel they can still get away with it. (I'm sure if Walter Pryk wore his Hitler outfit in one of those places he'd be hailed as a hero.)" ___________ Yes ethos, and Hitler was only in Europe out of the way of the entire world. "Injustice in any- where is a threat to justice everywhere." ______________ "And yeah, if he dressed up as Mussolini, a Klansman or wore a rebel flag in this town (without indicating it was a joke) I don't know if he'd make it home alive." ____________________________________________ Mussolini has not made the impact that Hitler has, so that costume is not the same. Why else would we welcome Mussolini's granddaughter to America. The Klansman with a rebel flag would have been looked at and watched closely, but probably not harmed in NYC. There is too much apathy in NYC.

Tom

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:07:53 -0500

But, you still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Not applicable here. One incites a riot and a situation where lots of people can get injured or killed. The other is a F*CKING HALLOWEEN COSTUME. Everything you do offends someone, at what volume does it become a "bad thing"?

mg

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:05:59 -0500

This is a non-story, one more hyped-up distraction concocted by the tabloid press to keep the proles agitated about nonsense while their standard of living and their constitutional rights are being destroyed. Don't take the bait, kids, this is just bullsh*t!

the fallguy

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:03:52 -0500

ethos

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:03:08 -0500

"I wonder how he would have made it clear that his costume was satirical rather than serious, or vice versa? It was Halloween, after all." And sometimes people do dress up as their heroes on Halloween, after all. I'm sure the girl in the Catwoman outfit or the kid in the Spiderman costume isn't trying to be tounge-in-cheek ...or feeling the need to disguise themselves as Charlie Chaplin on the way to school.

pangolin

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:02:24 -0500

that would only be the equivalent if he were black and wore an Al Jolson blackface costume, since he is, in fact, Jewish. I agree. Also, minstrelsy remains phenomenally offensive because racism against blacks is still such a raw, unfinished, contemporary topic. Hitler, on the other hand, is a caricature of extreme and defeated evil, and, if anything, mocking him only defeats him further. there's a statute of limitations on that, however.Maybe, but I just don't think we're there yet. We disagree, which is fine, but still I wonder why Communism has entered into kitsch while Nazism has not! Sure, avowed racists still exist, but then again, so do Communists, and they're all twits. If anything, the reason so many twits retreat to the Klan or whatever is in the reaction it gets from others - poor, ill-educated losers can't gain respect, but at least they can get attention through being hated. Change the game from "you are a monster" to "you are a joke" and the wind goes right out of their sails. I cite the bit from Freakonomics where Superman defeats the Klan. ... At any rate, dressing up as Hitler in high school is unwise, but I find it funny. If the school truly found it offensive, I'd adjudicate that sending him home for the day would have been an acceptable punishment. 10 days suspension is overkill. Might have been a good idea for him to have gone as a more silly Hitler. ... (In case anyone cares, I'm a Jew.)

P2H

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:57:16 -0500

I think we all respect the fact that Hitler was a criminal and psychopath who killed millions of innocent people. What I fail to understand is why Mel Brooks is able to have a Broadway show lampooning Hitler, and yet we villify a 16 year old for doing the same thing. Why aren't angry Jews emailing Mel Brooks also? Makes zero sense to me. I think this is another way that we absolutely blow everything out of proportion with our political correctness.

g

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:53:46 -0500

I don't think the kid himself is Jewish. The article says his step-dad is a Jewish author. It says nothing about the kid's religious beliefs or affiliation. I didn't mean for the examples to be equivalent. My point is simple: if you wear something meant to provoke, and all signs show that you knew it would (such as wearing a different costume on the subway) don't feign ignorance or hide behind first amendment rights when people are upset. As SD said, freedom of speech goes both ways. To add a point, freedom of speech has limits within institutions such as schools. If the principal felt it was a disruption to his school, he was within his rights to remove the kid from class.

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:52:56 -0500

"All I'm saying is that the kid should be allowed to do this, no matter how inflammatory it was. Is he an immature high schooler looking for attention? Yes, no doubt. Should he have worn it to school? Probably not. But everyone makes stupid mistakes, especially teenagers. I don't think he should be suspended for 10 days." Meredith: you are correct. Freedom is the idealistic concept that goes with democracy. But, you still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Everyone is not free to do as they please. That would be anarchy. There are consequences for using poor judgement. He is facing them. Also, I agree, I don't think that he should be suspended either. They are probably suspending him for his own good. I think that he should be sent to school to suffer the embarrassment he caused for himself. When his school mate ask him what he was thinking. He should face the questions. He should also try to answer them. His costume was a statement that people are responding to. Life if not a dress rehearsal. Being a teenager is no excuse.

Tom

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:51:58 -0500

I'm sure somebody who dressed as Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein would get lots of laughs in this country. Actually, you can buy Saddam and Bin Laden masks at a good number of Halloween stores. That's ok, though for some reason. Trouble for him is, he's responsible for his actions. The 1st Amendment doesn't says he's free from criticism or from the consequences. Wow, that's a frightening interpretation of the First Amendment. "You can say whatever you want, but, shit, we can arrest you if you say the wrong thing. Deal with the consequences."

homo

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:50:19 -0500

yeah, like the kid thought everyone would think his costume was a parody. He knew in his heart that people would be really offended and he would chuckle to himself feeling his own smugness at the fact. If someone dressed as a Hezbollah Suicide bomber jihadist with the death mask and fake dynamite strapped to their waist is that a parody? Yes, he has a right to express he's an asshole that's insensitive to other people's beliefs but we have a right to censure him as a majority.

maybe cuz

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:47:32 -0500

Maybe because Al Jolson never sent people to their death. And, we still have many holocaust survivors in the area. maybe he did, you tell me. and surely you give too much credit as to how many people even know who al jolson is.

S.D.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:45:48 -0500

dhex wrote:"Oddly enough, isn't something one should poke fun at." there's a statute of limitations on that, however.Maybe, but I just don't think we're there yet.

kristin

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:40:13 -0500

g - that would only be the equivalent if he were black and wore an Al Jolson blackface costume, since he is, in fact, Jewish. And if that happened (a black kid wore that to a predominantly black school), i bet no one would kick his ass. It would be a snide nod to the history of discrimination of the past. For some reason, this case is not being taken this way...

g

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:25:24 -0500

What if he had worn an Al Jolson blackface costume to a mostly African American school? Aside from admitting that he would get his ass kicked, would anyone still say that his right to free speech trumps issues of respect, consideration, a recognition of history, and responsibility not to provoke? Would anyone champion this high school kid as a brilliant satirist, a worthy successor to Mel Brooks, or on par with Sasha Baron Cohen's Borat? Donning a Hitler costume does not a Mel Brooks make any more than saying the n-word makes someone as funny or smart as Chris Rock.

just saying

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:24:08 -0500

If that dumb ass kid needed a First Amendment issue, don't tell me that this is the best thing he could come up with. What's the point? It's really not particularly hilarious or clever--or intelligent. Sadly, it's just kind of immature.

Meredith

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:23:49 -0500

S.D., of course you're correct. I wasn't debating that point at all.

Meredith

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:22:50 -0500

I wonder how he would have made it clear that his costume was satirical rather than serious, or vice versa? It was Halloween, after all.

dhex

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:19:31 -0500

"Oddly enough, isn't something one should poke fun at." there's a statute of limitations on that, however. if he dressed up like, say, ghenghis khan, would anyone care? peter the great? a random aztec king? andrew jackson? robert moses? (i just hate that fucker) beyond the scope of history there's ideological factors to consider. humans have a blind spot for horror from certain angles. the nazis are the great charicature of evil from the 20th century, not due to volume persay but a combination of factors. no one cares about cccp memorabilia, despite the horrid legacy of death and destruction the soviet union left in its wake (kgb bar, anyone?). shit, you can get mussolini t shirts in little italy now, complete with eagle and fasces. i wouldn't want to stop them from selling the shirts, even if i think a little "wtf d00ds?" is in order. che is still iconic to a remarkable degree, despite being a huge fan of labor camps for homosexuals, certain kinds of religious folk and other "counterrevolutionary deviants." but even in our own little sodom by the sea his image can be found everywhere. why? because humans are coalitional, and arbitrary, and afflicted for good and ill with a severe case of being symbol using creatures. enemy of my enemy is my friend type shit, etc. communism is a big joke, but nazism isn't. it's neither "fair" nor rational, but we're stuck with the population we have. sure, the kgb bar is insanely offensive if one stops to think about what it actually means, but that's probably not much of an issue for the people who go there. the same place done up "camp gitmo" style wouldn't be very funny either, and it would no doubt go out of business right quick. there's not a market in nyc for that kind of kitsch...yet. "Isn't arbitrarily deciding what's offensive and what isn't a little like fascism?" no, that's just being arbitrary.

alex p. keaton

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:09:57 -0500

Instead of hitler, he should of went as Erwin "Skippy" Handleman. He looks just like him.

ethos

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:05:48 -0500

S.D., REALLY good point.

ethos

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:02:19 -0500

#11, No offense but I think you're missing the point. No one's saying Hitler shouldn't be poked fun at, but like a lot of posters said before there was nothing to the costume to suggest he was being satirical. He himself knew its inflammatory potential since he was apparently too scared to wear it on the train, another point everyone's brought up. Seems to me the kid was trying to get attention at the expense of quite a few people who either survived or lost loved ones in the Holocaust, not to mention anyone who didn't fit the Nazis' idea of "racial purity," which is pretty much 90% of all New Yorkers. And yeah, if he dressed up as Mussolini, a Klansman or wore a rebel flag in this town (without indicating it was a joke) I don't know if he'd make it home alive. Sure people still fly the Confederate flag but that's more or less only in racist areas of the country where they feel they can still get away with it. (I'm sure if Walter Pryk wore his Hitler outfit in one of those places he'd be hailed as a hero.)

S.D.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:57:11 -0500

Meredith, He's allowed to say and Do whatever he wants. Trouble for him is, he's responsible for his actions. The 1st Amendment doesn't says he's free from criticism or from the consequences. It works both ways, People are free to walk up a speak their mind and be held accountable too.

Eric C

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:54:41 -0500

"It only appears funny because you obviously have never faced discrimination. You have never been attacked because of who you are. You have never heard bombs going off in your back yard or down the street. Your perspective is too immature." MH - agreed 100%. It saddens me that people feel such distance from these events. You "poke fun" at your uptight co-worker. You don't "poke fun" at a murderous regime. "Oh, you crazy kids with your raping, torturing, gassing ways!" I'm sure somebody who dressed as Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein would get lots of laughs in this country.

Stalin

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:52:36 -0500

fuckin' Hitler always hogs all the attention

next years costume

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:49:08 -0500

The kid was asked what next year's costume will be? he responded it would need to top this. OK, how bout An SS officer leading some Jews to the gas chambers or to the box cars off to the concentration camps. hell, make it an entire school affair, get everyone involved. Or, perhaps some mass graves of anorexic men and women, have them lie down in front of the school. How's this for hitler's PR machine?

Meredith

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:40:02 -0500

I'm talking about the concept/persona he and his PR machine created, not his actual mind and person. As I said before, I am aware of what happened -- who isn't? I've read a lot about Hitler and the Nazis and the atrocities they committed. I just don't believe that what they did means that we can't poke fun at them. All I'm saying is that the kid should be allowed to do this, no matter how inflammatory it was. Is he an immature high schooler looking for attention? Yes, no doubt. Should he have worn it to school? Probably not. But everyone makes stupid mistakes, especially teenagers. I don't think he should be suspended for 10 days.

S.D.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:33:44 -0500

Sure, he has the right to poke fun at the deaths of millions of people... What an Ass. This is not some abstract devil out of a myth, Hitler was responsible for the deaths of Millions and Oddly enough, isn't something one should poke fun at.

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:32:16 -0500

"Let's face it -- Hitler, as a persona, as a concept, can be pretty funny, actually." It only appears funny because you obviously have never faced discrimination. You have never been attacked because of who you are. You have never heard bombs going off in your back yard or down the street. Your perspective is too immature. Educate yourself. I don't think there is anything funny about mental illness. Hitler was a psychotic pathological person. How do you make lamp shades out of a human being? How do you methodically exterminate human beings? How was it that Hitler thought that he could control the entire planet by systematically killing people who would not agree with his political idea of perfection. He was mentally inferior.

Meredith

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:30:12 -0500

Hitler WAS a coward. That's one reason why this kid decided to be him for Halloween. If you're seriously offended by one high schooler dressing as Hitler as a joke, you may need to reexamine your priorities. And, re: your suggestion -- I think a parade of Hitlers down 5th Avenue would be hilarious.

free hat

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:28:37 -0500

Isn't arbitrarily deciding what's offensive and what isn't a little like fascism? I prefer to have these things handled by peer pressure, not by assault by classmates or by government. And a parade of Hitlers? Who cares? I personally like it when the KKK has a rally and they get outprotested by a 10 to 1 margin.

mh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:20:49 -0500

The United States can't allow SKIN HEADS and the KKK to march around the country protesting society and then critque and critcize a kid for wearing a custume. What about the confederate flag that still flies in many public spaces, of the south and in the back of pick-up trucks. Please. Don't be hypocrites. Educate the country. The country should stop behaving as though the past is the past. Stop behaving as though all of the sins of USA have been washed away. This kid obviously sees that something is rotten and it is not in Denmark. It is here is the USA.

on the avenue

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:20:24 -0500

OK, you two, how bout a parade of hitlers down fifth avenue with you two as grand marshal? See how it will turn out. and, it has nothing to do with "PC" it's offensive to NYC, to the School's name and to the area. three strikes and yer out. hitler was an ass pussy coward.

CR

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:16:49 -0500

As a proud Jew I can't see what the big friggin' deal is here. So the kid dressed as Hitler? Big whoop. And if he had dressed as Mousallini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc would anyone have cared? And oh yeah, the ADL - going flippy-floppy.

this town needs an enema

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:09:53 -0500

I love how the ADL doesn't bother to say why this isn't a First Amendment issue. It's offensive so it should be banned. This is PC run amok. So we can assault people now when they offend us? Little Hitler should sue the kicking classmate. That said, the courts have pretty much said kids in school have no first amendment rights.

Meredith

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:58:17 -0500

But the kid is Jewish, isn't he? His style was in the vein of Mel Brooks, he said! I think this is being blown totally out of proportion. Like everybody, I'm aware of the atrocities that occurred and I don't believe the world will ever forget them. What the Nazis did was beyond terrible. That said, I'm sick of Hitler/the Holocaust being "off limits." Yes, the kid is only in high school, so he's bound to be a little immature, but he certainly has a right to dress as Hitler as a joke. Let's face it -- Hitler, as a persona, as a concept, can be pretty funny, actually.

Meredith

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:57:46 -0500