Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

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...

White nationalist intimidation is protected speech though. Unlike being upset by police murdering people that totally justifies vehicular assaults as seen by the many laws trying to legalize the so called terrorist attack.
 
ponderingturtle said:
History shows when the KKK squares off with left wing in protest counterprotest they get immunity from their violence causing them to look bad.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true, this is a bad thing. Not sure what it has to do with our discussion, but obviously this would be bad.

And you still don't hold the nazi's violations of the agreement to be serious and set aside claims that.
Click to expand...

I haven't said that the violation isn't serious. I just haven't any opinion on that issue.

Clearly their violence and refusal to follow agreements can not be held against them to prevent giving them future permits.
Click to expand...

I was primarily thinking in terms of what should have been done on the day it occurred in Charlottesville. I didn't realize you were asking about future events.

If the same groups apply for a permit and their failure to follow agreements is likely to cause a public safety issue this time, then of course it should be taken into account. I've already said that public safety can sometimes justify restricting an exercise of free speech.
 
phiwum said:
All of the violence you mention is illegal and should be prosecuted[1].
Click to expand...

Does that mean it doesn't occur? Also, there's a big difference between a "should" in your abstract world and an "is" in the real world. Just because you want all such violence to be treated equally by the state doesn't mean it is.

I don't know why you keep claiming that I accept this violence.
Click to expand...

You implicitly do by your "free speech" principle which includes nazi rallies, and you've even made this explicit in your previous post as something you accept as a price for your principle. The question is, does this acceptance of violence as a price for your principle apply only to the nazis' violence are also to anti-fascists' counter-violence?
 
ponderingturtle said:
No the nazi's were smart enough to have enough heavily armed members to intimidate the police out of action. Black lives matters clearly needs to have more open carry protests.
Click to expand...

I imagine it would involve cruise missiles or drone strikes ;) Ferguson was pulling out the Military surplus before people had even organized a protest - if anything it was their over-the-top response that guaranteed that riots would occur the next day.

But the point is, at some point you're really just a terrorist group rather than any sort of legit political movement. And I think when you're folks are openly beating people half to death and driving cars into crowds, we're basically right at that line.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Generally no.
Click to expand...

When there is a permit and a route, you stick to it (or the directions of officers) or you may be committing an unlawful act. This has been in play for progressive protests for a long time.

No permit at all is the vast bulk of my experience though. Ability to command the direction is a factor of critical mass of the protest vs. total deployment and speed for the police. A few dozen people chanting are going to be sidewalk-bound by an equal force of police, but once you're up to 100+, they need increasing levels of equipment and fast shuttling capability for officers in turtle suits to start slowing down movement and forcing direction changes.

When they're caught unprepared, it's mostly bike cops reacting to the protest's moves to shut down the next intersection ahead. When they are organized and ready, it's a cat-and-mouse game where the protest needs to make rapid reversals or high-speed shifts through alleys to suddenly appear two blocks laterally to and behind their staging areas. They have to use the speed/mobility advantage, but again...the left and it's shoddy discipline complicate matters.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Your refusal to acknoledge it and pretend that the nazi's did nothing wrong
Click to expand...

Sorry?

Okay, if it was not clear before, let me say it now. Running over pedestrians on purpose is a bad thing.

Insofar as Nazis began some of the fights that day, they did wrong.[1]

Indeed, morally speaking, their views are vile and reprehensible, despite the fact that I believe they have a right to express them.

Also, just to be clear, it is bad to drown puppies for sport and entertainment.

Any other obviously bad things that I should point out are bad?

[1] I haven't followed the news closely enough to know which side behaved more violently that day (prior to the vehicular assault!). I tend to think it's the racists who behaved more violently, but I can't say with certainty.
 
Argumemnon said:
I notice you're not currently campaigning against slavery. I'm sure that means you support it.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the events of a specific day and he is ignoring the organized provocations that the side he is talking about their rights did. That is a clear endorsement or at least tacit acceptance that such tactics are ok.

He is clear that the violations of the nazi's stated plans by them is something that does not invalidate their permit and isn't even worth mentioning.

Who would ever feel that heavily armed white supremacists could possibly be viewed as a threat?

The answer is clear antifascists need more guns to be taken seriously. Guns get you out of responsibility for the actions your people commit.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
When there is a permit and a route, you stick to it (or the directions of officers) or you may be committing and unlawful act. This has been in play for progressive protests for a long time.
Click to expand...

I have objections to that on principles of freedom of travel. A bit beyond the scope here
 
ponderingturtle said:
White nationalist intimidation is protected speech though. Unlike being upset by police murdering people that totally justifies vehicular assaults as seen by the many laws trying to legalize the so called terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

What laws do you have in mind?
 
ponderingturtle said:
We are talking about the events of a specific day and he is ignoring the organized provocations that the side he is talking about their rights did. That is a clear endorsement or at least tacit acceptance that such tactics are ok.
Click to expand...

Yes, and right now I'm talking about slavery and your utter unwillingness to speak out against it. :rolleyes:
 
caveman1917 said:
Does that mean it doesn't occur? Also, there's a big difference between a "should" in your abstract world and an "is" in the real world. Just because you want all such violence to be treated equally by the state doesn't mean it is.
Click to expand...

Yes, ought and is are different. No kidding.

What is your point?

You implicitly do by your "free speech" principle which includes nazi rallies, and you've even made this explicit in your previous post as something you accept as a price for your principle. The question is, does this acceptance of violence as a price for your principle apply only to the nazis' violence are also to anti-fascists' counter-violence?
Click to expand...

I accept both, insofar as saying that both kinds of violence are and ought to be illegal and also should be prosecuted counts as "acceptance".

In fact, your question makes no sense at all. The same speech acts lead to the opportunities for violence by both sides. If I am willing to accept the risk of violence in order to protect speech, then the same risk applies to both sides.
 
phiwum said:
I haven't said that the violation isn't serious. I just haven't any opinion on that issue.
Click to expand...

A non issue means it isn't serious.

It is like when talking about a police shooting and never mentioning any wrong actions by the officer, it is perfectly reasonable to take it as assumed that you don't think the officer did anything worthy of criticism.
I was primarily thinking in terms of what should have been done on the day it occurred in Charlottesville. I didn't realize you were asking about future events.
Click to expand...

Forceably break up the nazi's when they showed total contempt for the agreed upon organized protest. But that only happens to groups unpopular with law enforcement so of course nazi's and the KKK are exempt from that.
 
Mumbles said:
I imagine it would involve cruise missiles or drone strikes ;) Ferguson was pulling out the Military surplus before people had even organized a protest - if anything it was their over-the-top response that guaranteed that riots would occur the next day.

But the point is, at some point you're really just a terrorist group rather than any sort of legit political movement. And I think when you're folks are openly beating people half to death and driving cars into crowds, we're basically right at that line.
Click to expand...

That just shows how cops love nazi's and hate black people.
 
ponderingturtle said:
White nationalist intimidation is protected speech though. Unlike being upset by police murdering people that totally justifies vehicular assaults as seen by the many laws trying to legalize the so called terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

This would need some clarification.

Repeated harassment, intimidation, communicated threats, etc. can be addressed (again with the caveat: assuming your officials are up to it) through orders of protection, victim and witness affidavits, recordings of interactions. Especially when you have the evidence to show the narrative of escalation occurring despite law enforcement's response (especially if that response is nothing). Because then you're basically presenting them with a case that might actually be better to bring to a federal prosecutor at that point and an expanded list of defendants.

But yes, that takes extraordinary perseverance on the parts of many people trapped in those pockets of hell that exist in America and is likely a struggle I'll never wrestle with.
 
ponderingturtle said:
We are talking about the events of a specific day and he is ignoring the organized provocations that the side he is talking about their rights did. That is a clear endorsement or at least tacit acceptance that such tactics are ok.
Click to expand...

What organized provocations do you have in mind?

The racists spewed some vile dispersions, and these could be called provocative. Insofar as they fell short of threats or fighting words, then I support their right to make such claims, while condemning the claims themselves.

If you mean something that incites violence, then of course I do not accept such tactics.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
When there is a permit and a route, you stick to it (or the directions of officers) or you may be committing and unlawful act. This has been in play for progressive protests for a long time.
Click to expand...

But no one holds nazi's to those standard. Conservative protestors always get a lot more leeway from the police than liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom