Freedom of speech?

[Thermal]

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.

Hm. I also called Rittenhouse Captain Kyle. Did you take that uber literally too? You think I was saying the young Mr Rittenhouse had attained the rank of Captain in some context? Hey, I mentioned the Punisher too. Do you interpret that as the comic book version, or the live action?

Do you always interpret figures of speech so selectively? That pick and choose thing working well, is it?

Nihilism isn't a problem in this particular thread. What you are doing definitely is.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

... and support from the President himself

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.

I think its a gold-plated certainty. Trump has encouraged them to do so

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/trump-proud-boys-stand-back-by-debate

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.

Some of us have been warning that this was coming for the last two years. We said Trump would do anything, break any law, smash any norm to try to avoid losing the election; he would use the AG as his personal enforcer to attack his political enemies. The forum's conservatives and Trumpers all laughed and called it fantasy. Well look what's happened - look at the political landscape now, and compare it with what it was like 24 months ago - not so funny now is it?

We also predicted that Trump would claim, without evidence, that the election was rigged against him - without evidence, that there was widespread election fraud, and that he would try anything he could, including the courts, to not leave office.

Watch the next three months very, very carefully USAians, you Democracy is at stake.

 

[Suddenly]

Hm. I also called Rittenhouse Captain Kyle. Did you take that uber literally too? You think I was saying the young Mr Rittenhouse had attained the rank of Captain in some context? Hey, I mentioned the Punisher too. Do you interpret that as the comic book version, or the live action?

Do you always interpret figures of speech so selectively? That pick and choose thing working well, is it?

Nihilism isn't a problem in this particular thread. What you are doing definitely is.

I apologize for taking "My position is the same over there as it is over here" seriously. I should have known that was satire given the absurdity.

 

[Thermal]

I apologize for taking "My position is the same over there as it is over here" seriously. I should have known that was satire given the absurdity.

"Vigilanism bad" is a valid takeaway. Pulp Fiction and comic book references should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two for the price of one

"Also, while opponents cannot disrupt a talk by an authorized controversial speaker, it is true that the speaker has no right to a cooperative or supportive audience...Simply put, the right to speak does not include a right to use speech to keep others from speaking." link

These two sentences answer two of the issues raised above: one concerning an audience and one concerning drowning out the speaker. The authors are professors of law.

 

[Thermal]

"Also, while opponents cannot disrupt a talk by an authorized controversial speaker, it is true that the speaker has no right to a cooperative or supportive audience...Simply put, the right to speak does not include a right to use speech to keep others from speaking." link

These two sentences answer two of the issues raised above: one concerning an audience and one concerning drowning out the speaker. The authors are professors of law.

I don't think it answers much. The issue is more along the lines of reconstructive dental surgery in response to public trolling.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a toss-up

I don't think it answers much. The issue is more along the lines of reconstructive dental surgery in response to public trolling.

I was thinking more about the bottles being thrown, etc. I gave my thoughts about punching back in comment #77.

 

[Suddenly]

The end result is the same in most, and maybe all, cases, but for those of us who read Supreme Court opinions for fun, I think they would write it up closer to the way I've described it.

Looking at it as a legal defense on a practical level rather than a theoretical issue for illustrative purposes is silly even though I keep letting myself getting sucked into it. It is on a practical level totally preposterous.

On a more theoretical level though...

Messing around with the definition of speech complicates things because it would allow for a court to by slight of hand just declare things to not be speech and avoid any of the constitutional issues that come with that.

Applying those protections to any act that is or can be speech in these sorts of obvious cases doesn't hurt anything. It ends up in the same place if we conceptualize punching a nazi for being a nazi as speech or if we just roll our eyes and say that because of the nature of the physical act that it doesn't merit the same analysis.

With the latter there is now room for a court to now expand that realm of conduct that allows them to skip those protections. It adds a step that isn't necessary and that could serve as a pretense to gut a lot of first amendment protections.

 

[Thermal]

I was thinking more about the bottles being thrown, etc.

Right, but we likely all know that no one has the right to a quiet and respectful audience. The violence, including even throwing bottles, should be pretty non-negotile from a freedom of speech POV. Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't claim freedom of political expression.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

From a purely practical standpoint, the bottle throwers are a difficult problem. Riot cops descending into the bottle throwing crowd would almost certainly be more disruptive and result in the end of the event.

At most of these protests, cops will focus on maintaining a barricade and arrest especially outstanding violent actors, but low level stuff that is diffused among a larger crowd is pretty much impossible to manage without just declaring a riot and clearing the whole area, which would have the same practical effect as canceling the event.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two shades of grey

Right, but we likely all know that no one has the right to a quiet and respectful audience. The violence, including even throwing bottles, should be pretty non-negotile from a freedom of speech POV. Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't claim freedom of political expression.

From reading the essays to which I linked, I sense that there is a grey area. Heckling a speaker is OK but not when it is so severe that the speech cannot continue. Another grey area is when it is justified for the police to shut down a talk.

 

[Thermal]

From a purely practical standpoint, the bottle throwers are a difficult problem. Riot cops descending into the bottle throwing crowd would almost certainly be more disruptive and result in the end of the event.

At most of these protests, cops will focus on maintaining a barricade and arrest especially outstanding violent actors, but low level stuff that is diffused among a larger crowd is pretty much impossible to manage without just declaring a riot and clearing the whole area, which would have the same practical effect as canceling the event.

Policing bottle throwing is more a practical-level concern. True, you can't dedicate the SWAT team to it, but assault is assault and it shouldn't be dismissed. The slippery slope is not always a fallacy; it can be an accurate descriptor of a problem.

My concern with a lot of this is the normalization of politically motivated street violence and it's inevitable escalation. Its a very short walk to my daughters being attacked for a Democrat-themed t-shirt, and I'd rather not be even theoretically supportive of that.

 

[Thermal]

From reading the essays to which I linked, I sense that there is a grey area. Heckling a speaker is OK but not when it is so severe that the speech cannot continue. Another grey area is when it is justified for the police to shut down a talk.

Regarding the first, I would just disagree. No one in compliance with, say, Public nuisance laws should be told to pipe down because someone is speaking. If the speaker doesn't like it, they should consider a more welcoming venue. No one owes them Southern hospitality

Regarding the second, public safety is similar to violence. Its a trump card condition, superseding the temporary and transient expression of one party in favor of the physical safety of others.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Policing bottle throwing is more a practical-level concern. True, you can't dedicate the SWAT team to it, but assault is assault and it shouldn't be dismissed. The slippery slope is not always a fallacy; it can be an accurate descriptor of a problem.

My concern with a lot of this is the normalization of politically motivated street violence and it's inevitable escalation. Its a very short walk to my daughters being attacked for a Democrat-themed t-shirt, and I'd rather not be even theoretically supportive of that.

My point is that, if you're concerned about the "hecklers veto", there really isn't much that can be done about a large crowd that's tossing bottles. Either you disperse the crowd, which likely means a chaotic end to whatever event (heckler's win), or you allow the event to continue with a certain level of jeering from the hostile crowd. Individual bad actors can be dealt with, but an unruly crowd is a different sort of problem. A heavy hand often increases chaos and can turn a rowdy crowd into a full blow riot.

What we saw here in the videos is pretty standard police tactics to these kinds of events, and is probably best of all the available options. Keeping the sides physically separated greatly reduces the ability for serious crimes, unless someone is foolish enough to cross the barricade and get their teeth knocked out.

The organizers did in fact give their speeches or whatever before packing it in. Most of their headliners didn't show up, so it was a short roster.

That's really neither here nor there, as these events are never about "free speech" and more about either beating the crowds or trying to cause general disorder. A Proud Boy event that doesn't end with violence is usually considered a failure, though I suppose that's preferable to an event where the organizers piss their pants and run scared out of the city limits.

 

[Thermal]

Im thinking more and more that Anderson got exactly, precisely what he wanted. If he knew no one was coming (least of all the advertised speakers) he would pretty much guarantee that the SF crowd would steamroll his crew. This paints the 'left' as aggressors, exactly what he wanted, which is why he was so careful to have police support. Crossing the barricade was a martyr move. He actually won.

 

[Meadmaker]

My concern with a lot of this is the normalization of politically motivated street violence and it's inevitable escalation. Its a very short walk to my daughters being attacked for a Democrat-themed t-shirt, and I'd rather not be even theoretically supportive of that.

(Emphasis added)

Good phrase. That is indeed my worry.

I read one of the links about some scuffles in Salem, Oregon, and something caught my eye that I hadn't heard about before. It talked about the two sides exchanging paintball fire. "Exchanging". I hadn't heard that before. I'm picturing these morons taking aim at each other across a field trying to score hits with their paintball guns.

It reminded me of Charlottesville. Both sides showed up with shields. Those of us in the SCA, who dress up in medieval armor and take to the fields with our friends, laughed at them, because they were just terrible in their shield wall formations and discipline. Just one session of training could have made them much more effective. And watching the videos of the people trying to sneak in and take the other side's flags, or grab one during a shield crunch, was just hilarious.

These aren't deadly terrorists or serious political actors. These are kids playing. They're going on a children's crusade, armed with toy guns and shields.

Until, of course, someone pulls out a real gun, or someone punches out someone's tooth. Remember the parking garage scuffle in Charlottesville with one guy severely beaten? Me neither. Two guys were beaten, but there wasn't much talk of the other one, but I digress. It started when a counterprotestor tried to grab one of the pseudo-nazi's flag. And on a different street.....oh, yeah, someone died.

Vote. That's important. Carry a sign with your message. Chant, sing, all of it.

But if you think you need pepper spray, maybe you're doing something wrong.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's really neither here nor there, as these events are never about "free speech" and more about either beating the crowds or trying to cause general disorder. A Proud Boy event that doesn't end with violence is usually considered a failure, though I suppose that's preferable to an event where the organizers piss their pants and run scared out of the city limits.

The Proud Boy who was talking about Anderson in the link shared earlier in the thread even mentioned that. I can't remember his exact words, but the idea behind it was that what they wanted was to show up, get attacked, and Antifa gets arrested.

Seems like this one worked out for them in the end.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

(Emphasis added)

Good phrase. That is indeed my worry.

I read one of the links about some scuffles in Salem, Oregon, and something caught my eye that I hadn't heard about before. It talked about the two sides exchanging paintball fire. "Exchanging". I hadn't heard that before. I'm picturing these morons taking aim at each other across a field trying to score hits with their paintball guns.

It reminded me of Charlottesville. Both sides showed up with shields. Those of us in the SCA, who dress up in medieval armor and take to the fields with our friends, laughed at them, because they were just terrible in their shield wall formations and discipline. Just one session of training could have made them much more effective. And watching the videos of the people trying to sneak in and take the other side's flags, or grab one during a shield crunch, was just hilarious.

These aren't deadly terrorists or serious political actors. These are kids playing. They're going on a children's crusade, armed with toy guns and shields.

Until, of course, someone pulls out a real gun, or someone punches out someone's tooth. Remember the parking garage scuffle in Charlottesville with one guy severely beaten? Me neither. Two guys were beaten, but there wasn't much talk of the other one, but I digress. It started when a counterprotestor tried to grab one of the pseudo-nazi's flag. And on a different street.....oh, yeah, someone died.

Vote. That's important. Carry a sign with your message. Chant, sing, all of it.

But if you think you need pepper spray, maybe you're doing something wrong.

There is no equivalency in any of these events.

Perhaps you misremember Unite the Right, but it was more than LARPers with shields playing capture the flag. Members of longtime terrorist orgs, like the KKK, showed up heavily armed. One KKK member discharged a firearm and likely intended to commit murder had he not had problems with his pistol. A local man was beaten nearly to death in a parking garage by a mob of fascists that traveled from out of state, there was a massive melee where the "alt right" beat the local protestors, and the event ended with a nazi driving his car into a crowd of people, killing 1 and maiming many more. But yeah, "both sides".

Over and over again, these events show that "both sides" is simply untrue. The right is violent at a frequency and intensity that has no parity from the left. They organize these events with the explicit purpose of instigating these confrontations, and are first to escalate the intensity of violence at any sign of resistance.

 

[Thermal]

There is no equivalency in any of these events.

Perhaps you misremember Unite the Right, but it was more than LARPers with shields playing capture the flag. Members of longtime terrorist orgs, like the KKK, showed up heavily armed. One KKK member discharged a firearm and likely intended to commit murder had he not had problems with his pistol. A local man was beaten nearly to death in a parking garage by a mob of fascists that traveled from out of state, there was a massive melee where the "alt right" beat the local protestors, and the event ended with a nazi driving his car into a crowd of people, killing 1 and maiming many more. But yeah, "both sides".

Over and over again, these events show that "both sides" is simply untrue. The right is violent at a frequency and intensity that has no parity from the left. They organize these events with the explicit purpose of instigating these confrontations, and are first to escalate the intensity of violence at any sign of resistance.

This is exactly why I get concerned when our side starts ramping up to knocking teeth out amidst cheers of approval. I don't want us to be on an even playing field. I want us to be the good guys, and them the violent criminals till it is indisputable who is who.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is exactly why I get concerned when our side starts ramping up to knocking teeth out amidst cheers of approval. I don't want us to be on an even playing field. I want us to be the good guys, and them the violent criminals till it is indisputable who is who.

The cops would have to not be on their side for them to be criminals. With the cops on their side it is all nice and legal.