Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

phiwum said:
I'm not so keen to cheer on violence against Nazis or anyone else. Seems to me that violence tends to escalate.
Click to expand...

They are Nazis. They could stop.

Do they really want to escalate into another war? Well if that's what it takes to stop Nazis, yes, let's do it again.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Like a momentary fit of rage against free speech allowing them to now label their rallies as free speech events.
Click to expand...

Take a page from politicians and put them in fenced in free speech zones like protestors at the republican convention. Of course that would only be applied to liberal protestors, they have fewer free speech rights to start with anyway.
 
The Don said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whether by direct or observed experience, most of us seem to go that route. The youthful enthusiasm is a necessary ingredient, though.

Myself, I'm resigned that you can't fully guide a movement like this. Certainly not across a continent, anyways. Serbia and a few other former bloc countries, some (suppressed, despoiled or eventually co-opted) Arab Spring examples, etc did well. The best you can do is keep the ingredients and ratios right, give hard learned strategic advice, and wait. I hate to invoke the Inspector Finch monologue, but all you can do is keep setting the dominoes up. Eventually someone will do something profoundly stupid and you pray to god that there's enough deliberative minds left in the aftermath to cobble a provisional administration together and that whoever wins isn't under the thumb of the criminal cartels or foreign powers that have to have gotten involved.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just like when a movie star get on a racist rant, they need to keep their job too. You must higher racists.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Were they fired from government positions? If not, what's the problem?
 
ponderingturtle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I haven't made any comment about that at all.

I don't have an opinion, really. I'm not sure what should have been done at the time.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the political speech which is illegal in the US is so not because of its political content but because it incites violence. I'm okay with that.

And I'm perfectly okay with arresting any Nazi who explicitly encourages violence against others[1].

Is that the sort of illegal political speech you had in mind?

[1] I think that's enough to be called "inciting violence", but I'm not a lawyer so could be mistaken.
 
phiwum said:
I haven't made any comment about that at all.

I don't have an opinion, really. I'm not sure what should have been done at the time.
Click to expand...

History shows when the KKK squares off with left wing in protest counterprotest they get immunity from their violence causing them to look bad.

And you still don't hold the nazi's violations of the agreement to be serious and set aside claims that. Clearly their violence and refusal to follow agreements can not be held against them to prevent giving them future permits.
 
ponderingturtle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Goodness. Is that what I think?

I wonder if you can show me where I intimated anything like you describe. Much thanks.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
This harkens back to the ACLU, with at least some Jewish lawyers, defending the rights of Nazis to march through Skokie, IL through a largely Jewish neighborhood.

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

Freedom of speech is a core principle that needs to be defended, no matter how abhorrent the speech.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just a Jewish neighborhood, it was a neighborhood densely populated with Holocaust survivors. The march wasn't intended as an expression of speech, it was a intimidating threat against victims...practically in their own homes. Some ACLU members were against defending the march.
 
The Don said:
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.
Click to expand...

Communicated threats are already illegal, so again there's a way to apply political pressure to a Mayor, County officials, Governor, etc to prosecute these criminally coercive groups for their non-protected speech calling for direct harm to others.

Now, if they say "we intend to blockade the park and prevent entry, we will sit in human chain style and take our arrests peacefully, but we will not willingly let you enter this public space to celebrate a vile thing" that's something that can be worked out peacefully and without violence.

But holy christ are we nowhere near that kind of discipline on the left. Not even close.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a little like saying they are being fired simply for being in the open air and enjoying a nice walk.

Freedom of speech is protected. Freedom from private consequences due to the things you say is not.
 
caveman1917 said:
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.
Click to expand...

All of the violence you mention is illegal and should be prosecuted[1]. I don't know why you keep claiming that I accept this violence.

[1] Obviously, some violence in Charlottesville was self-defense and I don't think that should be prosecuted.
 
trustbutverify said:
It wasn't just a Jewish neighborhood, it was a neighborhood densely populated with Holocaust survivors. The march wasn't intended as an expression of speech, it was a intimidating threat against victims...practically in their own homes. Some ACLU members were against defending the march.
Click to expand...

And those members were wrong. People don't have a right to not be intimidated by peaceful protest.
 
pgwenthold said:
They are Nazis. They could stop.

Do they really want to escalate into another war? Well if that's what it takes to stop Nazis, yes, let's do it again.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, if the only means of preventing a Nazi uprising is through war, then I agree.

I'm a little less certain what to do if an overt (more overt than Trump) Nazi is elected to high office. In general, we should respect the outcomes of democratic choices (like Trump's election). At some time, I suppose that the outcome is so heinous that it can't be accepted.
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Private affairs between employee and employer based on interactions between employer and potential customer base.

See! Free market principles at work :9.

Not government acts.
 
phiwum said:
Absolutely, if the only means of preventing a Nazi uprising is through war, then I agree.

I'm a little less certain what to do if an overt (more overt than Trump) Nazi is elected to high office. In general, we should respect the outcomes of democratic choices (like Trump's election). At some time, I suppose that the outcome is so heinous that it can't be accepted.
Click to expand...

Then you have the problem of dealing with people who think your position is so heinous that it can't be accepted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom