Democrats = Antifa = BS

Tsukasa Buddha said:
The Carlson incident sounds horrible. Checking for defenders.



Linky.



Linky.

So we had to reach all the way to a Vox pundit to find a public left figure defending the incident.
Click to expand...

Interesteing twitter thread on threadreader app (easier to read there than twitter)

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1061484728652570624.html


One last point on the Tucker Carlson protest, you don't wanna believe the protestors, why not go with the police version of events?

Cause there is a police report.

I'm gonna say that's a more reliable source than Mr. Carlson.

And it completely contradicts him.

Here goes.
First, the police interacted w/ the protestors as they were leaving & they didn't arrest anyone.

They actually saw the person spray-paint the anarchist symbol on the driveway.

The protestors were walking away slowly. Two walked with canes (yes). No one tried to run.
BTW there were 4 legal observers at this protest. People going to someone's house to break in, don't usually take legal observers.
The police talked to the protestors about not having a problem w/ them exercising their first amendment rights but that spray-painting the driveway was crossing the line. That was the issue.
If the police had received a frantic 911 call from Mrs. Carlson saying she was terrified, had locked herself in her pantry & people were trying to break into her house, there is no way that the police would have let the protestors go. They would have made arrests.
They would have sent so many squad cars to that location if she represented what was happening in that way. Police tend to over-react. They didn't here. That tells me Mrs. Carlson did not call & say she was being terrorized.
In the police report, there is no mention whatsoever of any damage to the front door of Mr. Carlson's residence. Not a scratch. This is consistent w/ protestors' saying they simply knocked on the door and then left a placard resting on it before retreating to the street.
There is no mention in the police report of anyone chanting anything about pipe bombs or chanting any sort of threats against Mr. Carlson.
What the police appeared to be focused on was the spraying of the anarchist symbol on the driveway of the residence by one person. That was the extent of the property damage. That was the extent of the activity that could possibly be construed as unlawful.
Even when it was reported that the incident was being looked at as a hate crime, it appears that this was the focus of the investigation.
(How that could in any way be prosecuted as a hate crime is a subject for another day.)
What is of concern now is that, since there has been such misreporting to which unfortunately people on the left like @StephenAtHome have given credence, there will be political pressure to bring criminal charges for activity that is not criminal.
I hope those people will take the time to reconsider and correct their misstatements.




Oh, hey, let me add, I'm not one to point to the police as a credible source. I am a public defender, people. But they are a more credible source here than Tucker Carlson. I am also trying to beat the MAGA folks at their own game. Like, what, you don't believe law enforcement?
Click to expand...
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"Crybaby Jim Acosta manhandles a female intern and the leftist press rushes to his defense, but a journalist’s wife and children are terrorized by a Democrat/Antifa mob and the mainstream media couldn’t care less."

-- James Woods (Nov 8, 2018)
Click to expand...

Did Jimmy have any choice words for the midterm beat down?
 
LSSBB said:
Better yet IMO, why mindlessly parrot celebrities on one side or another just to get a rise out of people you disagree with, for reasons you can't even articulate?
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think a russkie bot. Or just a bot.
 
Ponderingturtle's slopes aren't slick, they are frictionless. If you coated an airplane in Ponderingturtle argument's you'd break the speed the record.

And that's when they aren't just yelling at arguments that only exist in his head.
 
The Shrike said:
Are you more into slalom events or do you go straight for jumps down a slope this slick?
Click to expand...

So draw the line. People are so ready to condemn protests illegally shutting down major roads yet endorse exactly that when it is a famous one like the march on selma.

State some actual principles. These nebulous statements apply quite broadly.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So draw the line.
Click to expand...
I've always been a bit partial to this one:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Legal interpretations here.

Our right to protest is protected, our right to riot is not.

If Richard Spencer or some other fool what to say stupid things, they may. There might be repercussions for those things, such as losing invitations to speak elsewhere. That's all fine – we're guaranteed to the right to speak but we're not guaranteed an audience. If the idiot says something that incites violence, then even that speech is no longer protected.

Same with peaceful protest: We can gather and demonstrate and shout slogans, etc. We cannot, however, incite violence, vandalism, or other mayhem with our assembly. If some ANTIFA morons start smashing windows or whatever, then we should expect our assembly to be broken up because the right that protects it has been forfeited.

Sometimes, we might want to break the law as part of our protest to draw greater attention to an issue, e.g., MLK et al. during the Selma to Montgomery Marches. Sometimes you want to exercise your right within the limits of the law, e.g., MLK et al. during the Selma to Montgomery Marches.
 
The Shrike said:
If Richard Spencer or some other fool what to say stupid things, they may. There might be repercussions for those things, such as losing invitations to speak elsewhere. That's all fine – we're guaranteed to the right to speak but we're not guaranteed an audience. If the idiot says something that incites violence, then even that speech is no longer protected.

Same with peaceful protest: We can gather and demonstrate and shout slogans, etc. We cannot, however, incite violence, vandalism, or other mayhem with our assembly.
Click to expand...

Sure we can as long as it is broadly used and not targeted against a specific individual, like how the president encouraged attacking protesters and police brutality. That is perfectly nice and legal. That is why a "Kill all the Jews" march is perfectly legal after all. Inciting violence is protected as long as it is not specifically targeted.
 
The Shrike said:
No, that's not legal either, and it's one of a few dozen reasons I think that creep should be rotting in prison.
Click to expand...

See it is actually legal, because kill all the jews in not inciting violence but legally a political position. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent reporter" probably would be illegal. But a political position of state controlled media and execution of reporters who don't toe the line is protected by the first amendment.

This is well established legally in the US, which was what you were supposedly using as your guide.
 
ponderingturtle said:
See it is actually legal, because kill all the jews in not inciting violence but legally a political position. . . .

This is well established legally in the US, which was what you were supposedly using as your guide.
Click to expand...
My guide is our Constitutionally-protected right to peaceful demonstration. If a demonstration includes hate speech, it is no longer eligible for protection.

What constitutes hate speech is muddier, as you allude (I assume) to the legality of being a NAZI in the US so long as you don't say any violent NAZI stuff. American NAZIs skirt the line of Constitutional protection by not actually calling for violence; evidently this has been upheld in the courts. So I guess we keep a close eye on them, keep legal challenges at the ready, and shut them down* when they cross a line.

*Shutting down does not mean "I'm angry that someone gave this creep a platform so I'm going to throw some bricks through this other random persons' storefront window."
 
The Shrike said:
My guide is our Constitutionally-protected right to peaceful demonstration. If a demonstration includes hate speech, it is no longer eligible for protection.

What constitutes hate speech is muddier, as you allude (I assume) to the legality of being a NAZI in the US so long as you don't say any violent NAZI stuff. American NAZIs skirt the line of Constitutional protection by not actually calling for violence; evidently this has been upheld in the courts. So I guess we keep a close eye on them, keep legal challenges at the ready, and shut them down* when they cross a line.

*Shutting down does not mean "I'm angry that someone gave this creep a platform so I'm going to throw some bricks through this other random persons' storefront window."
Click to expand...

Hate speech is not a useful term in a US legal context. It's meaningless and using it in this context is not clarifying.

The constitution grants the right to be as hateful as you like. Violence is what is prohibited. While hateful speech often accompanies violent speech, the violent aspect is the only legally actionable portion.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Hate speech is not a useful term in a US legal context. It's meaningless and using it in this context is not clarifying.

The constitution grants the right to be as hateful as you like. Violence is what is prohibited. While hateful speech often accompanies violent speech, the violent aspect is the only legally actionable portion.
Click to expand...

And voilent speech needs to be specific, riot there, kill that guy. General statements about how blacks, gays or jews need to be put down is hateful but not legally violent.

The standard is not abstract violence, but imminent lawless action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And voilent speech needs to be specific, riot there, kill that guy. General statements about how blacks, gays or jews need to be put down is hateful but not legally violent.

The standard is not abstract violence, but imminent lawless action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent way to create a society where groups who are threatened feel like they have no support from their government and start taking matters into their own hands.
 
uke2se said:
That's an excellent way to create a society where groups who are threatened feel like they have no support from their government and start taking matters into their own hands.
Click to expand...

It's also seemingly inadequate, as that Milo guy and Richard Spencer have shown, when they assert their "right" to blather hatred at public Universities, only for their followers to show up and try to shoot people.

I suppose someone could point to that guy that started the Proud Boys, but really he created a violent street gang, so that's another matter.
 
uke2se said:
That's an excellent way to create a society where groups who are threatened feel like they have no support from their government and start taking matters into their own hands.
Click to expand...

Well it stems from anti communist era and such. So that to be criminal the standard is intent, imminence and likelihood. Advocating people violate the law in and of itself is not illegal, you need to intend that they do it(hence trumps I was jokeing stuff) and it needs to be imminent and likely.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The standard is not abstract violence, but imminent lawless action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Click to expand...
Please pardon my ignorance on this. That does indeed strike me as messed up, despite the Supreme Court's rulings.

Okay, I'll amend my threshold to where I thought it was as opposed to where it evidently is: I'd prefer the line to be nudged back a bit so that you forfeit your free speech protection when you promote violence to people even when they aren't brandishing weapons and standing next to a target of the rhetoric. I guess chants of "white power" are vague enough for me to be protected free speech, but "Jews will not replace us" is not.

Now that's the legal stuff. Counterprotesters are free to go after even the protected speech that they find offensive, and I would gladly join in shouting down any fools chanting white power.

Again shouting down =/= smashing storefronts and starting a riot because someone said something you don't like. This is why Antifa is bs, and they're enabling the creeps they're trying to stifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom