Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Ziggurat]

Do we wait until we have an activist to provably be shown to have inspired a specific terrorist act before they get on the bombing list?

Would you like to prosecute the Beatles?

As I said before and you ignored, "inspired" isn't a legally or even morally relevant term here.

Then can we get the republicans who were spouting lies and propaganda who inspired the planned parenthood shooter a year and a half ago?

And will you go after Daniel Quinn for inspiring the Discovery Channel shooting?

No, of course not. You're just looking for excuses to silence your political opponents.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Would you like to prosecute the Beatles?

As I said before and you ignored, "inspired" isn't a legally or even morally relevant term here.

Got it no culpability for just publishing the protocols of the elders of zion for the deaths of jews. When your lies are the basis people use to kill you bear no responsibility for that.

And will you go after Daniel Quinn for inspiring the Discovery Channel shooting?

No, of course not. You're just looking for excuses to silence your political opponents.

Now it is official, believing republican presidential candidates are telling the truth makes on insane.

 

[Ziggurat]

Got it no culpability for just publishing the protocols of the elders of zion for the deaths of jews.

No legal culpability, that's correct. Welcome to the 1st amendment. I know you don't believe in it, but I do.

Now it is official, believing republican presidential candidates are telling the truth makes on insane.

Yeah, no. My statement has nothing to do with Republicans. I believe the shooter when the shooter says what inspired him.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

This ultimately comes down to one question: Who gets to define "Nazi"? I mean, there's a reason Bills of Attainder are no longer a thing.

 

[dudalb]

I repeat that it is sad to see so many allged "rational thinkers" so anxious to throw a basic freedom out the window.

 

[varwoche]

This ultimately comes down to one question: Who gets to define "Nazi"? I mean, there's a reason Bills of Attainder are no longer a thing.

In the Milo thread, the punchables started out as just nazis. Unable to peg Milo as a nazi, it gradually expanded to bigots.

If vigilante advocates were to craft a stricter incitement law, I suspect we'd see a similar slope slippage.

 

[caveman1917]

In the Milo thread, the punchables started out as just nazis. Unable to peg Milo as a nazi, it gradually expanded to bigots.

If vigilante advocates were to craft a stricter incitement law, I suspect we'd see a similar slope slippage.

Wearing the Iron Cross and spreading Hitler memes celebrating the Holocaust tends to put one close to the "Nazi" position. Calling for an end to birth control and abortion so that the white race can "match Islamic birthrates" shows neo-nazi influence as well.

And that's even disregarding his praxis of outing students and such.

 

[jimbob]

Obnoxious, bigoted jerks have a right to free speech like everybody else.
Frankly, it freedom of speech applies only to those with "respectable opinions" it is a bad joke.

I repeat that it is sad to see so many allged "rational thinkers" so anxious to throw a basic freedom out the window.

In the Milo thread, the punchables started out as just nazis. Unable to peg Milo as a nazi, it gradually expanded to bigots.

If vigilante advocates were to craft a stricter incitement law, I suspect we'd see a similar slope slippage.

Yes.

Even if one thought that removing free speech for one unpleasant group was desirable, there is the problem as to who gets to determine it, and what else they would decide to censor.


Saying this, I can't get worried about the fact that NAZI propaganda has been banned in Germany.

ETA: But I acknowledge that that is inconsistent.

 

[Fudbucker]

I repeat that it is sad to see so many allged "rational thinkers" so anxious to throw a basic freedom out the window.

Sad times, indeed.

 

[Checkmite]

Spencer's constitutional right to free speech was not, and in fact could not possibly have been, restricted, threatened, or infringed upon in any way by being punched for what he said.

 

[varwoche]

Spencer's constitutional right to free speech was not, and in fact could not possibly have been, restricted, threatened, or infringed upon in any way by being punched for what he said.

This is a semantic nitpick. When someone is assaulted due to exercising their free speech rights -- rights granted by the constitution -- the assault serves to impinge on that person's speech rights, even though the first amendment doesn't apply in a legal sense.

 

[applecorped]

Spencer's constitutional right to free speech was not, and in fact could not possibly have been, restricted, threatened, or infringed upon in any way by being punched for what he said.

One punch can kill so of course you are absolutely wrong

 

[uke2se]

This is a semantic nitpick. When someone is assaulted due to exercising their free speech rights -- rights granted by the constitution -- the assault serves to impinge on that person's speech rights, even though the first amendment doesn't apply in a legal sense.

No, it's not a semantic nitpick. It's the very essence of what the first amendment says.

 

[Belz...]

This is a semantic nitpick. When someone is assaulted due to exercising their free speech rights -- rights granted by the constitution -- the assault serves to impinge on that person's speech rights, even though the first amendment doesn't apply in a legal sense.

Here's another tic nitpick: the constitution doesn't grant rights; rather it prevents the government from curtailing them.

 

[Cavemonster]

Spencer's constitutional right to free speech was not, and in fact could not possibly have been, restricted, threatened, or infringed upon in any way by being punched for what he said.

I'm not sure off the top of my head about the legal precedent here, (and apologies if this was brought up earlier in this thread) but I feel like it COULD be a first amendment issue if anyone in the justice system, from police officers through to judges treated this attack differently from other battery cases due to the nature of Richard Spencer's speech and beliefs. It wouldn't be exactly the punch by itself violating his constitutional right, but the punch and its treatment by the state together.

All that said, yes, it pains me to see equivocation between the legal right to free speech and the ethical value or "Human right" to free speech.

The former is clearly based on some concept earlier of the latter. If you live in a country where a police officer will arrest you for a speech act or an angry mob will beat or kill you for it, both have the same effect. I suppose in the latter you hypothetically have the recourse of the law, but that has limited utility after the fact.

I personally value that unpopular ideas can be voiced. I think most of us agree that the government should be restricted from deciding which ideas can be shared, and I'd like to hope that we can agree that angry mobs shouldn't get to decide that either, even if some of the mobs happen to agree with me or you about what speech is terrible.

I like my violence relegated to self defense, rule of law and consensual BDSM. Anywhere else and we start to look pretty dystopic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And we need to stop treating people advocating violence of any kind as criminals. We are wrong to attack those who merely try to paint ISIS as being right and have no role in the planning attacks. That is clearly an unconscionable violation of free speech.

Anwar al-Awlaki was just a recruiter and motivator so like Richard Spencer he should have been covered by free speech.

 

[pharphis]

Noel Plum weighs in

 

[varwoche]

No, it's not a semantic nitpick. It's the very essence of what the first amendment says.

It's an irrelevant nitpick in the context of this thread. Or might I have overlooked posters claiming that Spencer's 1st amendment rights were violated?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's not a semantic nitpick. It's the very essence of what the first amendment says.

No, sorry, you're wrong. Your error is in thinking that the 1st amendment is the end of the story. It isn't. The 1st amendment itself protects your right to free speech against government intrusion, but your right to free speech exists independent of the 1st amendment. Federal law even recognizes this:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;"

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not a federal law enforcement or anti-terrorism official, I'm not the one responsible for collecting such evidence. He is alleged to have conspired to commit them. If the allegations are true, then Awlaki has done more than exercise his free speech.

And mearly raising money and funding terrorism isn't a big deal either, you can be in congress and do that. Look at Peter King and how he supported and raised funds for the IRA. Clearly beating the crap out of him would be totally acceptable.

God, it's like you don't know even the first thing about the concept of free speech, and what its actual limitations are.

And promoting and advocating genocide is covered. Just like advocating terrorism. Unless of course you have the wrong skin tone then they take you out. There have been several targets who have been justified by them recruiting and proselytizing for terrorists. But when it is cleansing the untermensch it is all good.