Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[caveman1917]

Do you have a point?

Of course.

You do realize that there are laws against those acts already, right?

These acts didn't happen because there are laws against them? Or how else is your statement relevant?

I'm also not opposed to preemptively cancelling events that are very probable to end in violence. Public safety matters. That is different than not allowing Nazis to speak because of their political views.

Speaking about their political views with bats, shields and poles? Have you considered that this notion of "nazis coming out in force to express their liberal free speech rights" exists only in your head? Granted, vehicular attacks are rare, but beating people up with poles is more the norm than anything else.

 

[phiwum]

But who gets to make that call? You assume it would be someone like yourself, but as I see it there are not many folks like that in government.

This is why you need to think before you promote an idea, racist idiots would love your idea to gain traction, they would use it to shut down people left right and center.

When you promote a new political idea you are throwing a weapon in the middle of a bar brawl, it's usually a good idea to make sure your people can use it better than than the other side before doing so.

I don't think that preemptive cancelling of events due to public safety concerns is a new political idea, is it?

In any case, you're right that the practice is ripe for abuse. There are, I imagine, opportunities to challenge such cancellations in court and this would help prevent abuse.

But I agree with your concerns certainly. I am not concerned enough to take consideration of public safety completely out of the toolbox, but surely we must be careful how it is used.

 

[phiwum]

I'm older now and am resolutely in favour of non-violent protest/counter-protest. In my youth however I was involved in a number of scuffles with neo-Nazis and regret none of them.

I wonder if times have changed. In your day, was there ever an event that ended as badly as Charlottesville? Do you think that the current times make violence (of the fistfight variety) more likely to turn deadly?

These aren't rhetorical questions. I get the feeling that there's more of a powderkeg under some of the demonstrations these days than before, but it's just my impression.

 

[phiwum]

Of course.



These acts didn't happen because there are laws against them? Or how else is your statement relevant?

Speaking about their political views with bats, shields and poles? Have you considered that this notion of "nazis coming out in force to express their liberal free speech rights" exists only in your head? Granted, vehicular attacks are rare, but beating people up with poles is more the norm than anything else.

Carrying weapons in public isn't against the law in Charlottesville, but attacking people is. If it's the brandishing of weapons that concerns you, then Charlottesville could make a law without restricting free speech.

Banning certain forms of political speech because public demonstrations have led to violence is a blunt instrument at best and violates the very reason we have a First Amendment: to allow for political speech quite broadly.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm older now and am resolutely in favour of non-violent protest/counter-protest.

Large non-violent anti-fascist protest, Berlin 1932.

 

[The Don]

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make.

I think that The Big Dog was suggesting that if, as you, "preemptively cancelling events that are very probable to end in violence" then all the opposition have to do is to threaten to bring that violence.

A civil rights organisation wants to hold a peaceful rally - all that needs to happen is that a white supremacist organisation says that they'll turn up armed and ready to cause problem - and that rally is cancelled.

 

[The Don]

I wonder if times have changed. In your day, was there ever an event that ended as badly as Charlottesville? Do you think that the current times make violence (of the fistfight variety) more likely to turn deadly?

I'm in the UK and the situation here is orders of magnitude calmer than it was back in the 1980s. Here in the UK, apart from in Northern Ireland, firearms are rare, especially at political events so the violence would be largely unarmed or armed with blunt instruments.

Then again on most of the demonstrations I was at, the police represented the biggest danger.

These aren't rhetorical questions. I get the feeling that there's more of a powderkeg under some of the demonstrations these days than before, but it's just my impression.

IMO it's just an impression. For sure tensions are running higher than they were in the late 90's or early 00's but IMO that's one of the effects of the recession. But if you look back at, say, 1968 then by those standards it's not even close.

 

[caveman1917]

Banning certain forms of political speech because public demonstrations have led to violence is a blunt instrument at best

Allowing certain forms of political violence because it comes with political speech is better?

and violates the very reason we have a First Amendment: to allow for political speech quite broadly.

Antifascists, anarchists, communists, and leftists in general regularly get the government interfere or even get jailed for their political speech. Your so-called "free speech" only applies to right-wingers anyway.[*] So why should I care about "reasons we have a First Amendment"? I'm not even promoting banning them, relying on the capitalist state to fight fascism is deluded.

* interesting how groups like the Black Panthers or militant Native American groups have all been dismantled by the feds but the KKK goes on just fine.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think that preemptive cancelling of events due to public safety concerns is a new political idea, is it?

In any case, you're right that the practice is ripe for abuse. There are, I imagine, opportunities to challenge such cancellations in court and this would help prevent abuse.

But I agree with your concerns certainly. I am not concerned enough to take consideration of public safety completely out of the toolbox, but surely we must be careful how it is used.

And canceling them after a bunch of armed men show up is wrong for public safety as well. That is why really Chamberlain had it right, capitulation to nazi's is the only sensible course of action.

 

[phiwum]

Allowing certain forms of political violence because it comes with political speech is better?

Something which is illegal is not "allowed", but I think I know what you mean. If we banned certain political speech, we would prevent some violence.

And I agree. If we banned Nazi speech, say, then violence associated with Nazi rallies would be prevented.

So, yeah, I think the freedom of speech is important enough that I'm willing to accept some violence that could be averted if only we restricted certain forms of political speech.

Antifascists, anarchists, communists, and leftists in general regularly get the government interfere or even get jailed for their political speech. Your so-called "free speech" only applies to right-wingers anyway.[*] So why should I care about "reasons we have a First Amendment"? I'm not even promoting banning them, relying on the capitalist state to fight fascism is deluded.

* interesting how groups like the Black Panthers or militant Native American groups have all been dismantled by the feds but the KKK goes on just fine.

I am not defending asymmetric speech rights, so I won't bother responding to this.

 

[The Don]

And canceling them after a bunch of armed men show up is wrong for public safety as well. That is why really Chamberlain had it right, capitulation to nazi's is the only sensible course of action.

I must have missed the bit where he capitulated

I distinctly remember reading about the appeasing bit (which arguably bought enough time for the UK to rearm sufficiently to withstand the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain), and the declaring war bit...



.... but the capitulation seems to have passed me by.

 

[phiwum]

And canceling them after a bunch of armed men show up is wrong for public safety as well. That is why really Chamberlain had it right, capitulation to nazi's is the only sensible course of action.

Sorry, is this a response to anything I've written?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Something which is illegal is not "allowed", but I think I know what you mean. If we banned certain political speech, we would prevent some violence.

And I agree. If we banned Nazi speech, say, then violence associated with Nazi rallies would be prevented.

So, yeah, I think the freedom of speech is important enough that I'm willing to accept some violence that could be averted if only we restricted certain forms of political speech.




I am not defending asymmetric speech rights, so I won't bother responding to this.

I am willing to accept an infinite amount of violence for it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Something which is illegal is not "allowed", but I think I know what you mean. If we banned certain political speech, we would prevent some violence.

And I agree. If we banned Nazi speech, say, then violence associated with Nazi rallies would be prevented.

So, yeah, I think the freedom of speech is important enough that I'm willing to accept some violence that could be averted if only we restricted certain forms of political speech.




I am not defending asymmetric speech rights, so I won't bother responding to this.

You are though. You don't think that these nazi's lost their rights when they violated the planed entrance for their protest for example. They wanted a battle because such battles historically end well for them. See the nice and legal Greensboro massacre. The heroic and patriotic KKK killed 5 foul members of the communist workers party.

 

[Darat]

Something which is illegal is not "allowed", but I think I know what you mean. If we banned certain political speech, we would prevent some violence.

And I agree. If we banned Nazi speech, say, then violence associated with Nazi rallies would be prevented.

So, yeah, I think the freedom of speech is important enough that I'm willing to accept some violence that could be averted if only we restricted certain forms of political speech.

...snip...

All you are saying really is where you put the line, the USA already makes some forms of political speech illegal, as do pretty much all the countries that have a "free speech" right.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

But who gets to make that call? You assume it would be someone like yourself, but as I see it there are not many folks like that in government.

For the public safety angle? Whoever the law has empowered to make that decision. Theoretically, there is an elected official (or their appointee) who you can mount public pressure against if you think they are engaging in malfeasance. Or specific decisions that one can file suit to suspend by court order.

But that of course all boils down to "just how responsive to our petitions for redress of grievances do they have to be?" All it says is we can make said petitions.

If we don't like the manner in which we can petition and they aren't being responsive to petitions, then what?

This is why you need to think before you promote an idea, racist idiots would love your idea to gain traction, they would use it to shut down people left right and center.

Kennedy said it best, too often the only ways left to settle things is in the courts or in the streets. If we don't walk this tightrope quite right, I don't like the outlook.

When you promote a new political idea you are throwing a weapon in the middle of a bar brawl, it's usually a good idea to make sure your people can use it better than than the other side before doing so.

Like a momentary fit of rage against free speech allowing them to now label their rallies as free speech events.

It's like a badly missed supply airdrop that reinforces your enemy's line instead of yours.

 

[Belz...]

And canceling them after a bunch of armed men show up is wrong for public safety as well. That is why really Chamberlain had it right, capitulation to nazi's is the only sensible course of action.

Chamberlain sure learned from that mistake, though. The second time Hitler tried, he said that the Fuhrer was untrustworthy and refused.

 

[Darat]

I'm surprised that more people aren't concerned about the reports of being being sacked simply for exercising their legal right of free speech. That to me is a very chilling of free speech.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, is this a response to anything I've written?

You don't think nazi protestors need to be bound to follow the agreed upon routes and should certainly never be criticised for initiating violence. They wanted violence and got it. If they didn't they would have showed up at the entrance they were supposed to use, instead of making sure they were all over the place. But with how heavily armed they were you can't disperse them once this gets out of control by their intent.

That is why the only possible response when it is white people is to scede the area to the nazi's.

If they were black you could break out the tear gas but no one gasses good old boys like nazi's and the KKK, the police are to close politically to them for that to work out.

 

[caveman1917]

Something which is illegal is not "allowed", but I think I know what you mean. If we banned certain political speech, we would prevent some violence.

And I agree. If we banned Nazi speech, say, then violence associated with Nazi rallies would be prevented.

So, yeah, I think the freedom of speech is important enough that I'm willing to accept some violence that could be averted if only we restricted certain forms of political speech.

If you accept violence inherent in this particular political speech, then surely you accept all the violence inherent in this particular political speech? As in, antifa beating up the nazis. After all, if nazis get to beat up black people, immigrants, muslims, or whatever "untermensch" they've decided on for the day as a price worthy to pay for your principle, then so should nazis themselves getting beaten up by antifa.

I am not defending asymmetric speech rights, so I won't bother responding to this.

Not in your abstract de jure world, no.