• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

I never moved them.

I said context matters, you present examples with clear context.

Perhaps not a goalposts shift. Seems more like outright non sequitur on second thought.

I'm not intelligent enough to give you an answer to the question you pose. Our civilization has been around for a long time, and we haven't solved this issue yet, so I'm fairly sure not a lot of people are intelligent enough to solve it. All I am asking is that we acknowledge the fact that free speech cannot be an absolute right, because sometimes that right would infringe upon other rights, including other people's right to free speech.

I've not advocated said absolute position.

Out of curiosity how does one person speaking prevent another from also doing so?

Because that vague claim could just as easily be spun from a desire to shut down dissent.
 
I said context matters, you present examples with clear context.

Perhaps not a goalposts shift. Seems more like outright non sequitur on second thought.

:confused:

How so?

I said context didn't matter?


I've not advocated said absolute position.

Never said you had. I am arguing against that position.

Out of curiosity how does one person speaking prevent another from also doing so?

Societal or communal pressure. As an example, say you have a workplace. A general racist jargon is permitted. This prevents the minority employee from being comfortable enough to speak.


Because that vague claim could just as easily be spun from a desire to shut down dissent.

What was vague about my claim? I think it was fairly straight forward.
 

I don't feel like repeating myself.

I said context didn't matter?

No. Your replies didn't address comparisons without context was the problem. Showing comparisons with context completely avoids the issue I raised. They are concise examples and I agree with the conclusion they lead to.

They just also have nothing to do with my issue.

Moving on...

Never said you had. I am arguing against that position.

A pointless distinction to make to someone who is not arguing for it. The "refute the claim nobody made" retort tends to imply the antithetical position is held by the other party. Perhaps that wasn't your intent and if not, I'm at a complete loss as to why that statement even needs to be made or how it advances the discussion.

Societal or communal pressure. As an example, say you have a workplace. A general racist jargon is permitted. This prevents the minority employee from being comfortable enough to speak.

Other people speaking doesn't prevent dissenting speech. I'm not aware of "free speech" meaning everyone has to feel comfortable, in fact enforcing that would look awfully absolutist.

Now if there are implied violent or discriminatory consequences for the minority objector, then we're no longer discussing protected speech conflicts and back to things that are already illegal and need proper enforcement.

What was vague about my claim? I think it was fairly straight forward.

It's vague when it doesn't take much effort to imagine a lot of people agreeing with the statement for entirely different (even contradictory) reasons.

It's a platitude.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
We can absolutely determine that a pistol fired in the direction of someone else (people say the Nazi aimed at the ground, but I don't see that in the video, just that he's aiming in the general direction of the counter protesters) is a crime. We cannot determine that spraying fire from an aerosol can in the approximate viscinity (within, say, 10-15 feet) of other people is a crime.

I foresee lots of charges against people breathing fire at events now. Clearly people should be shooting at them.
 
I don't feel like repeating myself.



No. Your replies didn't address comparisons without context was the problem. Showing comparisons with context completely avoids the issue I raised. They are concise examples and I agree with the conclusion they lead to.

They just also have nothing to do with my issue.

I have no idea what you're talking about and if you're not going to explain it, I'm not interested.


Moving on...



A pointless distinction to make to someone who is not arguing for it. The "refute the claim nobody made" retort tends to imply the antithetical position is held by the other party. Perhaps that wasn't your intent and if not, I'm at a complete loss as to why that statement even needs to be made or how it advances the discussion.

I'm not just talking to you.


Other people speaking doesn't prevent dissenting speech. I'm not aware of "free speech" meaning everyone has to feel comfortable, in fact enforcing that would look awfully absolutist.

It's not about being comfortable. It's about being in a position to utilize one's right to free speech. Try to think about it a little bit.

Now if there are implied violent or discriminatory consequences for the minority objector, then we're no longer discussing protected speech conflicts and back to things that are already illegal and need proper enforcement.

There doesn't need to be violent consequences, and there's no law against shunning a co-worker - only if the boss does that is it a legal problem.


It's vague when it doesn't take much effort to imagine a lot of people agreeing with the statement for entirely different (even contradictory) reasons.

It's a platitude.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

It's a platitude to say that rights sometimes collide? I wish it was.
 
Yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding how what we saw with the aerosol can can be a crime in any way.

It is the whole white man with a gun is not a big deal,. A black man with fire is scary and they need to be put down.
 
It's not about being comfortable. It's about being in a position to utilize one's right to free speech. Try to think about it a little bit.

I have. I still don't see how someone speaking makes another person not able to also speak.

There doesn't need to be violent consequences, and there's no law against shunning a co-worker - only if the boss does that is it a legal problem.

What legal construct would you propose to deal with people shunning other people they disagree with?

It's a platitude to say that rights sometimes collide? I wish it was.

Yes, because you can still draw almost any conclusion you want from there. Like how you insist that "rights collide" means some institutional construct should put its thumb on the scale.

Sometimes a standoff of rights not superseding each other is the correct result. When it comes to literally just speaking one's mind (again, assuming no communicated threats of violence, etc), I don't see how to consistently apply such a standard and I trust no human being in existence to judiciously and wisely wield such a power.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
I have. I still don't see how someone speaking makes another person not able to also speak.

Even after I explained it? Ok then. I can't help you.

What legal construct would you propose to deal with people shunning other people they disagree with?

None. I was giving you an example of how some people's right to free speech might infringe on another's right to free speech. Please put down those goal-posts when you're done with them.

Yes, because you can still draw almost any conclusion you want from there. Like how you insist that "rights collide" means some institutional construct should put its thumb on the scale.

It does? I don't think I ever said that. Maybe you could find it for me?

Sometimes a standoff of rights not superseding each other is the correct result. When it comes to literally just speaking one's mind (again, assuming no communicated threats of violence, etc), I don't see how to consistently apply such a standard and I trust no human being in existence to judiciously and wisely wield such a power.

I just gave you an example, but you apparently are too locked in your views to even reflect on it. Too bad.
 
Even after I explained it? Ok then. I can't help you.



None. I was giving you an example of how some people's right to free speech might infringe on another's right to free speech. Please put down those goal-posts when you're done with them.



It does? I don't think I ever said that. Maybe you could find it for me?



I just gave you an example, but you apparently are too locked in your views to even reflect on it. Too bad.
Your example doesn't involve removal of vocal cords or sewing their mouth shut.

I remain unconvinced that speech was prevented. The party in question is making an affirmative choice as to whether they want acceptance of their peers or to vocalize their thoughts.

Perhaps I have unfairly implied your proposal for how to resolve this example.

What is it you propose to do?
 
They were planning on getting attacked?

Get a grip.



Yes, because you are defending Nazis. There's no other reason for them to scare you.

ETA: I just wanna do a double-take here - a Nazi fires a gun at a black man on an open street, but it's the counter-protesters that scare you?

I mean... really?
Interjecting my .02... Antifa doesn't "scare" me per se. They concern me though, because they may as well be on Trump's payroll, as their actions are helpful to the very forces they think they oppose.
 
Interjecting my .02... Antifa doesn't "scare" me per se. They concern me though, because they may as well be on Trump's payroll, as their actions are helpful to the very forces they think they oppose.
They specifically scare me because any attempt to hold them to account or criticise them will draw charges of defending Nazis/fascists/corporate wage slavery/insert boogeyman de jure and the emotional outrage machine will follow with condemnations hurled by third parties in the audience who see a chance to gain some social currency.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
Some fascinating stuff about the gunshot/aerosol confrontation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/us/charlottesville-arrests.html

Interesting tidbits:

The guy who fired the shot is Richard W. Preston, an Imperial Wizard of the KKK.

He is charged with.....wait for it......discharging a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.

That's actually a very clever charge to press against him. If charged with assault or attempted murder, the actions of the assaulted party would be much more relevant. There's no doubt he discharged that firearm, and I suspect it will be more difficult to mount an affirmative defense based on Mr. Long's actions. He might be able to plausibly argue that his actions were justified as defensive, but there were clearly other actions he could have taken in defense of his friends, that did not require discharging the firearm.

Meanwhile, Mr. Long, he of the aerosol flame-sprayer. Later in the day, a man was beaten in an altercation in a parking garage. Some counter-demonstrators were harassing some alt-righters as they marched along. One of the righters got mad and tried to "spear" a counter-demonstrator with a flagpole. A friend intervened, striking at the flagpole, at which point several righties attacked the friend. Some of the attackers were charged for the attack. The person who the righties tried to "spear"? Corey Long.
 
If a group of bigots march to advocate their disgusting view that some of their fellow human beings are inferior scum then of course some of those "inferior scum" (and even a few decent people of the same ethnicity as the bigots) are going to turn up to disagree with them. If violence results, who do you blame?

When I was younger I was sure that freedom of speech was an absolute right, but then I read about how American civil rights groups were arguing in favour of allowing Nazis to stage a march which would take them pass the homes of concentration camp survivors, and I realised that sometimes different rights conflict. Yes, Nazis have the right to freedom of speech, but concentration camp survivors have the right to live the rest of their lives free from fear and intimidation. Both rights cannot be granted, society has to choose whose right is going to be given priority. I know what my choice would be.

This is something a lot of "free-speech absolutists" on this forum and elsewhere simply don't get.

One of those things is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The other is not.

I do not support the violation of any person's constitutional rights on the basis of someone else's hurt feelings.

I have sympathy with the hurt feelings, and I find the hate-speech atrocious and offensive. But it is still their right, and I still defend that right regardless of how much I disagree with what they are saying.

When you begin violating civil rights because of your beliefs, that's a really short slope to zealotry and wide-spread censorship. If you think it'
s appropriate to curtail the rights of racists on the basis of your belief... why wouldn't it also be appropriate for the incredibly large number of Christians in the US to curtail your rights on the basis of their belief?

Are you so certain you want to open that box, dear Pandora?
 
As usual, Florida law is what I'm most familiar with - stipulated NC may be slightly different, and someone can check out if the elements are similar.

In Florida:

As defined under Section 784.021, Florida Statutes, Aggravated Assault consists of four factual elements:

The accused intentionally and unlawfully threatened, by word or act, to do violence to the alleged victim,

At the time the threat was made, the accused appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat,

The accused’s threat created in the mind of the alleged victim a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place, and

The assault was made either with a deadly weapon or with a fully formed conscious intent to commit a felony.

Essentially, Aggravated Assault is an assault with an additional act consisting of the use of a deadly weapon or the intent to commit a felony. Larkins v. State, 476 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1985).


First, an officer on the scene must determine if all the elements are present and if he or she knows a certain person probably committed them.

Second, a State Attorney will decide whether he or she can present a case which can prove those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Often they can't, and the case is "nolle pros'd", i.e. not prosecuted.

Just food for thought.
 
Last edited:
Well, no... he didn't fire at any person. He fired at the ground.

He allegedly fired at the ground in front of someone (I say allegedly because he sure isn't pointing the pistol towards the ground when he fires it, but rather towards the counter protesters.

And since not aiming at a certain person fire means that the flamethrower was perfectly innocent, your same logic should apply here.

But it doesn't, because it wasn't a flamethrower but an aerosol can, and thus not a deadly weapon, which a pistol is.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom