Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[varwoche]

You know... I've actually run across far more cries for killing white people than I have for killing any other races.

Run across where? In person? News reports?

Either way, your anecdotal observations have proven to be quite unreliable.

 

[dudalb]

Didn't expect such a full throated defence of Brexiting UK from you!

I am also not getting why the UK's press has more freedom then in the US....given the UK's restrictive libel laws.

 

[LSSBB]

You know... I've actually run across far more cries for killing white people than I have for killing any other races.

Evidence, please.

 

[The Don]

Didn't expect such a full throated defence of Brexiting UK from you!

We already have a freer press, better right to assembly and a better functioning democracy here in the UK than they have in the US.

It will be interesting to see whether they degrade post-Brexit

 

[The Don]

I am also not getting why the UK's press has more freedom then in the US....given the UK's restrictive libel laws.

You can still print it, you may end up being sued, but that's part of a free press.

 

[Giz]

We already have a freer press, better right to assembly and a better functioning democracy here in the UK than they have in the US.

For a definition of "more restricted/government controlled" = "better", then yes.

It will be interesting to see whether they degrade post-Brexit

Yeah, if only the UK had continental Europe's tradition of free expression and democracy.

 

[The Don]

For a definition of "more restricted/government controlled" = "better", then yes.

Whatever definition the Democracy Index is good enough for me.

Yeah, if only the UK had continental Europe's tradition of free expression and democracy.

Many/most EU countries have higher Press Freedom Index and Democracy Index than the UK and certainly higher than the US.

 

[johnny karate]

Ahh. Does that then mean that if I participate in a charity event that benefits my community, but was organized and sponsored by a church (therefore, by your definition it's a church event), I am guilty of enabling and/or tacitly supporting religion?

Any event sponsored by an organization in some way represents what that organization stands for.

Whatever you may feel about religion in general, a lot of churches, synagogues, and mosques do things beneficial for society. Like hold yard sales for charity. In that way, there is positivity associated with these organizations.

There is absolutely no positivity associated with white nationalism, white supremacy, Nazis, or the KKK. None. They are nothing more than violent hate groups, and have nothing of value to contribute to society.

Now, if you want to imagine fictional events like bake sales to raise money for kitten cancer research sponsored by the Aryan Brotherhood, you have it.

As long as you realize that those events don't exist in reality, and the more you bend over backwards to argue in defense of these groups, the more you look like a sympathizer with their cause.

 

[dudalb]

Meanwhile Al Sharpton plays rights into Trump's hands with his "Defund the Jefferson memorial " tirade.
Nice going, Al,nice going.

 

[ddt]

You end up with some kind of oppressive hell-hole like Germany or the UK where the media is freer, people's right to assembly is less curtailed and democracy is functioning better than in the US ?

Speaking of German media - here's the cover of this week's Der Stern, a widely sold German weekly magazine. Says all what they think of the Orange Turd's reaction to this.

 

[sunmaster14]

Speaking of German media - here's the cover of this week's Der Stern, a widely sold German weekly magazine. Says all what they think of the Orange Turd's reaction to this.

Yes, it says that they see an opportunity to downplay the horrific crimes in Germany's past by intimating a false equivalence with America today. I would call it chutzpah, but, well, you know ...

 

[dudalb]

Yes, it says that they see an opportunity to downplay the horrific crimes in Germany's past by intimating a false equivalence with America today. I would call it chutzpah, but, well, you know ...

Anything to defend Dear Leader.

 

[Mumbles]

Meanwhile Al Sharpton plays rights into Trump's hands with his "Defund the Jefferson memorial " tirade.
Nice going, Al,nice going.

You know, folks like Sharpton are much better than you assume. look at the past decade or two.

 

[ddt]

Yes, it says that they see an opportunity to downplay the horrific crimes in Germany's past by intimating a false equivalence with America today. I would call it chutzpah, but, well, you know ...

They wouldn't dare do that, but I see you desperately need to believe that.

Here's the answer of the editor to such reactions. I'll help you with a translation:

The rightwing-nationalist protesters in Charlottesville raised their arms in a Nazi salute, and the US president has not distanced himself from either this gesture, nor from their ideas. On the contrary, Donald Trump saw in many of them "good people". With this attitude, he makes common cause with the protesters and, figuratively, salutes them back. Exactly that is what the Stern cover visualizes. It is, of course, far from us to want to downplay the horrific Nazi crimes.

Maybe you then prefer Der Spiegel's cover? "The true face of Donald Trump".

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

You know... I've actually run across far more cries for killing white people than I have for killing any other races.

Evidence, please.

I can't imagine what you'd be looking for as evidence, other than Emily's Cat saying so herself.

 

[quadraginta]

I can't imagine what you'd be looking for as evidence, other than Emily's Cat saying so herself.

"Some people say ..."

 

[Thermal]

Then maybe you should review the First Amendment.

Perhaps you should too, as well as Supreme Court decisions that allow some restrictions on obscenity, incitement, fighting words, and other expression not always protected. I think that the courts could view Confederate imagery as unprotected hate speech in some contexts, if argued well.

ETA: took me a minute to find the SCOTUS opinion I had in mind. Justice Scalia commenting on R.A.V. v City of St.Paul, where some crackers fired up a cross in the front yard of a black family:

The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey.

It is the intolerable and socially unnecessary angle that I think may be extended to Confederate monuments.

 

[xjx388]

Perhaps you should too, as well as Supreme Court decisions that allow some restrictions on obscenity, incitement, fighting words, and other expression not always protected. I think that the courts could view Confederate imagery as unprotected hate speech in some contexts, if argued well.

ETA: took me a minute to find the SCOTUS opinion I had in mind. Justice Scalia commenting on R.A.V. v City of St.Paul, where some crackers fired up a cross in the front yard of a black family:



It is the intolerable and socially unnecessary angle that I think may be extended to Confederate monuments.

And by the arguments in the very case you quoted, it's clear that a law against Confederate monuments would not hold up.

...the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics.

Statues are not fighting words.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps you should too, as well as Supreme Court decisions that allow some restrictions on obscenity, incitement, fighting words, and other expression not always protected. I think that the courts could view Confederate imagery as unprotected hate speech in some contexts, if argued well.

ETA: took me a minute to find the SCOTUS opinion I had in mind. Justice Scalia commenting on R.A.V. v City of St.Paul, where some crackers fired up a cross in the front yard of a black family:

It is the intolerable and socially unnecessary angle that I think may be extended to Confederate monuments.

So your position is giant yard signs that say "Jesus loves you" and statues of Lenin on private property amount to "obscenity, incitement, fighting words, and other expression not always protected"?

 

[jimbob]

And by the arguments in the very case you quoted, it's clear that a law against Confederate monuments would not hold up.



Statues are not fighting words.

What if I commissioned a statue of you being lynched?