Freedom of speech?

[Thermal]

Right, just like we all cared so much about the frat boys getting punched when they tried to have an impromptu party at a biker bar back in college.

"Play stupid games win stupid prizes" applies even in political circles.

ETA: Note I posted this reply to post #21 in this thread before realizing there were five pages of posts in this thread.

Fair point, with a caveat. Clowns being stupid and having their asses handed to them is one thing. But we are a forum of presumed adults, having an adult discussion touching on broader ideas and their practice and application, society-wide.

Chad showing up for class with a fat lip is funny. Egging on violent street confrontations, which escalate and turn deadlier across our country almost daily, is quite another. Especially against organized entities that **** around with guns and explosives. Jack O' Anderson may be a joke now. Heather Heyer's family is probably not ready to laugh yet.

 

[smartcooky]

Here is an excellent article about how the right is creating a "free speech crisis" where none actually exists

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...c-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

If you find the article a bit TL;DR, there is a podcast covering the same ground here.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/au...anic-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis-podcast

 

[Thermal]

I mean, that's a position to take that is at least intellectually honest.

But let's lot bury our heads in the sand like some here. The Proud Boys is an unapologetic neo-fascist group. They aren't even coy about it. These rallies are fascist rallies. No slippery slope, no hyperbole, just plain fact.

I can understand an unwavering 1A position here, but denying that these fash are fash is just embarrassing at this point.

They are certainly neo-fascist, no doubt. How much power and influence they wield, or even have the potential to wield, is a little fuzzier.

I doubt they will have a huge impact before imploding and turning on themselves. That, and the gov't doesn't like loose cannons, even friendly ones, so I doubt they could grow beyond the comfort level of the PTB, even considering that their ideology is fringe to most of society to start with.

I don't think they are a massive threat. They are still a very small organization with few members. Antifa and general protesters dwarf them in numbers more with every gathering. They are more like a bad neighbor with loud dogs; for now, steer clear and wait for nature to take its inevitable course with them.

No, they are not nazis who will take over, and we are not reliving early 20th century Germany. It's a different threat in a different time and we should keep it in perspective.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe this was missed?

Yes, it was. I don't pay much attention to Upchurch.

But it's not an equivalent situation. If you want to do a public protest, you generally need a permit. I believe the San Francisco people had one. If they didn't, the police (not antifa) would be justified in clearing them out. The DC people didn't have one. Had they applied and gotten denied one, that might be a free speech issue. But to the best of my knowledge, they didn't even apply for one. So them getting cleared out of a specific area by law enforcement when they had no permit to protest there and could simply walk a block away really doesn't bother me. It isn't a free speech issue.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, it was. I don't pay much attention to Upchurch.

You pay enough attention to report me when I get your goat. You often ignore me only when I’m right. Except, of course, when I catch you lying Or being a hypocrite, then you just call me names.

But it's not an equivalent situation. If you want to do a public protest, you generally need a permit. I believe the San Francisco people had one. If they didn't, the police (not antifa) would be justified in clearing them out. The DC people didn't have one. Had they applied and gotten denied one, that might be a free speech issue. But to the best of my knowledge, they didn't even apply for one. So them getting cleared out of a specific area by law enforcement when they had no permit to protest there and could simply walk a block away really doesn't bother me. It isn't a free speech issue.

There go the goal posts. You said conservative attacks on liberal free speech, did you not? Whould you like to specify all your conditions now, or just admit that your personal biases blind you to events that don’t fit your preferred narrative?

Lafayette Park is a public space. To people need permits to gather In a public space?

ETA: it turns out, you don’t need a permit for what they were doing and lack of a permit doesn’t legally or constitutionally allow the President to commit violence against peaceful protesters. You need a new rationalization for your double standard, Zig.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/

 

[Suddenly]

He can be a bad, rotten , lousy Hitler-wannabe horrible-ass person. Doesn't mwan some self-appointed Punisher gets to go to work on him with pliers and a blowtorch. Talk is talk, and talk is cheap. If they committed no violence, don't serve it up to them. Captain Kyle over on the Rittenhouse thread thought he could unilaterally dispense his own brand of justice too. My position is the same over there as it is over here. If (g}your position is different on them, time for a little self-reflection.

He punched a proud boy and you are going to "pliers and a blowtorch" and a shooting.

The complete unwillingness (or inability) to make value judgments in this thread is impressive. Taking a punch, sadistic torture, and a shooting and treating them the same is arguably more nihilistic than equating proud boys and those who oppose them.

 

[Suddenly]

Congratulations, you win the award for stupidest post in this thread.

No, violence is not speech.

Acts can be speech. This is beyond dispute. All that depends is the context.

Violence is an act. It can be speech depending on the context. Punching a Nazi is making a statement of disapproval.

Now, we can agree that it is political speech in a manner not acceptable in a lawful society, but that has nothing to do with the idea of acts as speech.

This may seem a fine distinction, but it is important to note that we don't allow some forms of speech because they cause harm. The absolutist position breaks down here.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They are certainly neo-fascist, no doubt. How much power and influence they wield, or even have the potential to wield, is a little fuzzier.

I doubt they will have a huge impact before imploding and turning on themselves. That, and the gov't doesn't like loose cannons, even friendly ones, so I doubt they could grow beyond the comfort level of the PTB, even considering that their ideology is fringe to most of society to start with.

I don't think they are a massive threat. They are still a very small organization with few members. Antifa and general protesters dwarf them in numbers more with every gathering. They are more like a bad neighbor with loud dogs; for now, steer clear and wait for nature to take its inevitable course with them.

No, they are not nazis who will take over, and we are not reliving early 20th century Germany. It's a different threat in a different time and we should keep it in perspective.

I think you underestimate how large a vanguard group has to be to be effective. While the Proud Boys themselves are a somewhat small organization (though with several active sub groups throughout the country) they increasingly enjoy support from mainstream conservatives.

I think it's more likely than not that one or more of these chapters of brownshirts is involved in some election day shenanigans, such as fights at polling stations or displays of force meant to intimidate voters. If I had to bet money, I'd say Philly or somewhere else in the swing state of Pennsylvania, given that there is an active chapter in that swing state, though Florida seems another strong contender. Fortunately, circumstances likely mean that it will be harder to sway the vote through a single day of violence, as many are either voting early or by mail.

An increasingly open fascist president, a heavily armed vanguard street gang that enjoys broad support from "mainstream conservatives" (Read: cowards without courage of their violent convictions), and a politically active police force is quite a precarious situation.

A close, contested election seems like a situation guaranteed to see the activation of nationwide street violence from the right. Hopefully polling is correct about a Biden landslide that makes such a scenario moot.

 

[Darat]

Acts can be speech. This is beyond dispute. All that depends is the context.

Violence is an act. It can be speech depending on the context. Punching a Nazi is making a statement of disapproval.

Now, we can agree that it is political speech in a manner not acceptable in a lawful society, but that has nothing to do with the idea of acts as speech.

This may seem a fine distinction, but it is important to note that we don't allow some forms of speech because they cause harm. The absolutist position breaks down here.

I much prefer the ECHR expression "freedom of expression", I think "freedom of speech" is an anachronistic holdover from times past when all we could do was speak.

 

[Meadmaker]

Acts can be speech. This is beyond dispute. All that depends is the context.

Violence is an act. It can be speech depending on the context. Punching a Nazi is making a statement of disapproval.

Now, we can agree that it is political speech in a manner not acceptable in a lawful society, but that has nothing to do with the idea of acts as speech.

This may seem a fine distinction, but it is important to note that we don't allow some forms of speech because they cause harm. The absolutist position breaks down here.

I wouldn't recommend trying out that argument to a judge.

 

[Darat]

I wouldn't recommend trying out that argument to a judge.

Isn't that how "freedom of speech" is defined in the USA in regards to burning the flag i.e. it is a matter of "freedom of speech".

 

[Suddenly]

I wouldn't recommend trying out that argument to a judge.

You mean that I shouldn't argue to a judge that punching a nazi is in fact speech while also being an illegal act?

Yes. Admitting to an illegal act is generally an unwise legal argument.

 

[Meadmaker]

Isn't that how "freedom of speech" is defined in the USA in regards to burning the flag i.e. it is a matter of "freedom of speech".

I think a judge would consider that certain acts have an expressive funcition, but may also serve some other function. In the case of flag burning, it is an act of expression, but it is also starting a fire. The expressive act of burning the flag is protected speech. However, the consequences of the fire are a separate act. If you burn a flag, and the fire ends up causing damage to people or property, you may still be liable for civil and criminal penalties associated with starting a fire.

If starting a fire is illegal in itself, such as it might be in certain forests where there is a risk of wildfire, the fact that your intention in starting the fire was to make an expression doesn't offer protection for the illegal act. I wouldn't be able to cite the case, but people have actually attempted to use that sort of defense, and failed. An illegal act does not become legal because it is part of free speech. The only constitutional protection is that if an act is perfectly legal, it cannot be made illegal because of the expressive nature of the act. e.g. if it is legal to burn a piece of cloth, it cannot be made illegal to burn a piece of cloth that is decorated with a pattern of stars and stripes.

Similarly with the punch. Assault and battery is illegal. It is not made legal by the fact that it includes an expressive element of expressing disapproval of the ideas espoused by the victim of the assault and battery.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Acts can be speech. This is beyond dispute.

According to Trumpanzees, it depends on context. If it's in support of Trump and right-wing points, it is. If it's "leftist" it's not speech.

Also, money = free speech.

 

[Suddenly]

I think a judge would consider that certain acts have an expressive funcition, but may also serve some other function. In the case of flag burning, it is an act of expression, but it is also starting a fire. The expressive act of burning the flag is protected speech. However, the consequences of the fire are a separate act. If you burn a flag, and the fire ends up causing damage to people or property, you may still be liable for civil and criminal penalties associated with starting a fire.

If starting a fire is illegal in itself, such as it might be in certain forests where there is a risk of wildfire, the fact that your intention in starting the fire was to make an expression doesn't offer protection for the illegal act. I wouldn't be able to cite the case, but people have actually attempted to use that sort of defense, and failed. An illegal act does not become legal because it is part of free speech. The only constitutional protection is that if an act is perfectly legal, it cannot be made illegal because of the expressive nature of the act. e.g. if it is legal to burn a piece of cloth, it cannot be made illegal to burn a piece of cloth that is decorated with a pattern of stars and stripes.

Similarly with the punch. Assault and battery is illegal. It is not made legal by the fact that it includes an expressive element of expressing disapproval of the ideas espoused by the victim of the assault and battery.

In a first amendment analysis personal physical violence would be clear example of acceptable time/place/manner regulation.

 

[Meadmaker]

In a first amendment analysis personal physical violence would be clear example of acceptable time/place/manner regulation.

Good luck with that.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Punching this guys teeth out remains just as lawful as when fascists roll through town shooting paintballs and pepper spray out of moving vehicles. In theory, a crime, in practice, not a crime unless the cops say so.

It's funny seeing the back the blue and fascist types complain about cops not protecting and serving properly. What are they gonna do, fly the blue line flag at half mast?

 

[Suddenly]

Good luck with that.

It is the cleaned up simple version of what you were trying to say.

The implication that there is something here that suggests this act would be made legal based on it being speech is curious given that I've claimed otherwise throughout making this point.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

yelling FIRE in a crowded thread

From FIRE: "Let’s first clarify that there is no First Amendment right to shout down a speaker." FIRE is a non-partisan organization that is focused on colleges and universities.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

From FIRE: "Let’s first clarify that there is no First Amendment right to shout down a speaker." FIRE is a non-partisan organization that is focused on colleges and universities.

This may be valid in the context of an invited speaker at a university, but doesn't really apply to events held on the public square. Nor did the city deny a permit or force the speakers to leave because of hecklers.

This FIRE link is about universities cancelling events because of the threat of disturbance. That didn't happen here. The city granted the permit, set up barricades, separated the crowds, etc. The city didn't assess any special "security" fees nor force them to cancel or change their plans.

Maybe you can claim that they didn't adequately police the counter protest, but they also didn't cancel the event or force the organizers to flee in terror. They did that on their own.

Obviously there is no legality to actual violence (though I don't condemn it here), showing up and drowning out people through sheer force of superior volume is perfectly legal. Showing up with drums and horns and speakers to drown out speech is lawful on the public square.