Freedom of speech?

[xjx388]

If you (general) support the right of counter-protestors to inflict violence on protestors, simply because of the content of their speech, then I'm sure you have no problem with people beating the crap out of BLM protestors.

Look, if you support the concept of free speech, you must therefore support the right of people to assemble peaceably in public areas to engage in that speech. Which means that no one else -not the government, not other people- has a right to kick them out violently. It doesn't matter if you agree with what they are saying or not or how hateful you think they are -you don't have a right to hit people because they are saying something you don't like.

And if you want it to be another way, then you have to go back to the first sentence of this post.

 

[smartcooky]

That someone was violently assaulted for expressing their opinions.

I thought that would have been obvious.

Yes, it was obvious, it always has been

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And that's a good thing? Seems like people were complaining that the police looked the other way on violence against antifa. I guess that was never actually a principled stance, only a partisan one.

Video I'm seeing seems like the police took action to enforce the barricade separation. That's generally how they manage opposing crowds at these kinds of events. They can't really do much for some agitator that decides to cross over to get into a confrontation.

It's expecting a lot for the police to go rescuing a toothless CHUD that took it on himself to cross the picket line, and they kept the barricade up as he beat his hasty retreat. They also drove the small group out in a police van, so they got some pretty special treatment indeed.

 

[Meadmaker]

*** assuming you're American ***

At last, another poster on this thread who understands their own Constitution!!! Pity there are so few!

The moral free speech of which you speak has, of course, no legal or constitutional standing (and of course, I'm sure you are not claiming this).

That's all well and good, but Anderson had a legal right to be free from assault, which right was violated by a masked protestor.

Likewise, every protestor who threw a bottle at the stage was hurling a missile which had a significant chance of causing injury. Since the bottle hurlers were not government actors, there was no violation of the right of free speech involved. However, there was a crime. The right of the people on stage to be free from assault was violated in a criminal manner.

On the other hand, legal rights are granted by the government, and so I suppose can only be eclipsed by the government. Punching someone out, then, is not actually a violation of their rights. It is simply a crime, as defined by the government, committed against them. You don't have a right to be free from bodily injury, but the government has decreed that injuring someone is a crime. (Some exceptions apply, but not in this case.) So, we can go over to philosophy board and discuss the nature of "rights", or we can just arrest people who commit violence against their fellow citizens, and not debate the abstract concept behind the meaning of the laws.

 

[Suddenly]

If you (general) support the right of counter-protestors to inflict violence on protestors, simply because of the content of their speech, then I'm sure you have no problem with people beating the crap out of BLM protestors.

Well, no. Besides there is no claim of a "right" to inflict violence seeing it is illegal, I'm not a nihilist who equates white supremacists with opposing police brutality. I'm capable of making value judgements based on specifics and basic morality.

Look, if you support the concept of free speech, you must therefore support the right of people to assemble peaceably in public areas to engage in that speech. Which means that no one else -not the government, not other people- has a right to kick them out violently.
It doesn't matter if you agree with what they are saying or not or how hateful you think they are -you don't have a right to hit people because they are saying something you don't like.

No right to do so. This puncher should be arrested. There are pragmatic reasons a government has to take a far more neutral approach to free speech than I do.

However, we can like that it happened. Which is the point.

Anyone shedding tears over this guy eating a fist and thinking that is somehow more significant than what is advocated by the guy eating the fist and his stated eagerness to himself engage in violence might want to rethink their priorities.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And what is it with calling the rally organizers nazis and fascists?

It provides a façade of moral cover for the advocacy and lauding of political violence.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It provides a façade of moral cover for the advocacy and lauding of political violence.

The organizer is a fascist. He's a proud boy. Do you dispute this characterization?

 

[Suddenly]

The organizer is a fascist. He's a proud boy. Do you dispute this characterization?

I mean, that doesn't make him a bad person does it? I hate it when people bring politics into everything.

 

[Ziggurat]

If we are going to be true absolutists about this then punching someone based on their political views is in and of itself speech in the same way burning a flag is speech.

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

No, violence is not speech.

 

[xjx388]

Well, no. Besides there is no claim of a "right" to inflict violence seeing it is illegal, I'm not a nihilist who equates white supremacists with opposing police brutality. I'm capable of making value judgements based on specifics and basic morality.



No right to do so. This puncher should be arrested. There are pragmatic reasons a government has to take a far more neutral approach to free speech than I do.

However, we can like that it happened. Which is the point.

Anyone shedding tears over this guy eating a fist and thinking that is somehow more significant than what is advocated by the guy eating the fist and his stated eagerness to himself engage in violence might want to rethink their priorities.

Right? I mean who sheds tears over criminals getting beaten and raped in prison? Nobody with their priorities straight, that's who. Those beatings and rapes should be celebrated! They shouldn't have done the crime if they didn't wanna get beaten and raped, amirite?

--
If there are tears being shed here, it's over the complete breakdown of basic civility and human decency being exhibited.

 

[Dr. Keith]

True. The question I was asked was how much should we get our panties in a twist over a Republican demonstrator getting punched in the mouth. Without any additional information about the altercation, I'd say pretty bunched. New evidence might change that.

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.

 

[smartcooky]

That's all well and good, but Anderson had a legal right to be free from assault, which right was violated by a masked protestor.

Likewise, every protestor who threw a bottle at the stage was hurling a missile which had a significant chance of causing injury. Since the bottle hurlers were not government actors, there was no violation of the right of free speech involved. However, there was a crime. The right of the people on stage to be free from assault was violated in a criminal manner.

On the other hand, legal rights are granted by the government, and so I suppose can only be eclipsed by the government. Punching someone out, then, is not actually a violation of their rights. It is simply a crime, as defined by the government, committed against them. You don't have a right to be free from bodily injury, but the government has decreed that injuring someone is a crime. (Some exceptions apply, but not in this case.) So, we can go over to philosophy board and discuss the nature of "rights", or we can just arrest people who commit violence against their fellow citizens, and not debate the abstract concept behind the meaning of the laws.

That's all well and good, but its something of a non-sequitur, because I wasn't arguing against any of that - I was addressing cavemonster's (very good) post which, by the way, made no mention of violence, punching or assault.

 

[phiwum]

Gotta say I'm feeling pretty good about the SF popo assigned to police this rally. Only a dozen or so people to protect, and they couldn't stop the organizer from getting pummeled. No arrests either. Sounds a little like someone was quite pointedly looking the other way.

I hope you're wrong. I don't want police in Republican areas to overlook violence from the right and I don't want police in Democratic areas to overlook violence from the left.

 

[Thermal]

I mean, that doesn't make him a bad person does it? I hate it when people bring politics into everything.

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.

 

[Cavemonster]

*** assuming you're American ***

At last, another poster on this thread who understands their own Constitution!!! Pity there are so few!

The moral free speech of which you speak has, of course, no legal or constitutional standing (and of course, I'm sure you are not claiming this).

This moral right to free speech is determined by, balanced with, set against (call it what you will) the backdrop of what Society wants as a whole. If Society wants right wing extremist, neo-Nazi, fascist hate speech to be part of "moral free speech" it will evolve the conditions to allow it to be an acceptable part of that speech. It is abundantly clear, however, that Society, as a whole, does not want this to happen. I think is is fair to say that the numbers of people/protests against that kind of speech are far, far greater than those who protest for it. Rallies and gatherings like this one, and "Unite the Right" type white supremacist rallies have, in all cases, been hugely outnumbered by counter-protestors. The people may not have spoken, but they are in the process of doing so - forcefully!

I don't disagree with much you say here exactly. But it sort of seems like you're suggesting that the level and kinds of speech a society accepts has a kind of final moral weight.

As I mentioned to another poster, at one point, US society had decided that homosexual people's rights, love and inclusion in society were not permitted speech.

I think we're probably on the same page, just wanted to underline that society as a whole doesn't create moral rightness when it draws a line. The majority can be very wrong and harmful. Luckily, the process of societies setting their lines of tolerated speech is ongoing. It's always in process.

In case I wasn't clear before, I think the kind of "free speech" issues these particular groups are protesting have an exceptionally poor argument as a moral free speech issue. The platforms they're addressing are acting to prevent the spread of disinformation campaigns.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Knocked two of his teeth out, for the sin of...what was it? Wearing a hat or shirt? There was literally nothing else reported.

Not exactly true.

Team Save America organized the rally to protest Twitter, which it said squelches conservative speech.

So their 'protest' was actually an attempt to spread lies. In an ideal world these people would be properly sanctioned. Unfortunately the one we live in gives such deplorable behavior a pass, but it doesn't completely protect them from reactions.

No arrests were made, the department said.

Translation:- the 'protestors' got what they deserved.

Anderson called the counterprotesters hypocrites and said they are the reason why he’s voting for President Donald Trump.

Two deplorable lies in one sentence. He has no idea whether any of the counter-protesters are hypocrites or not, and he would be voting for Trump anyway.

“I love America, I love this country and I love free speech,” he said.

Lair! If he loved America he wouldn't be voting for Trump. If he loved free speech he wouldn't be protesting Twitter.

But the best part is:-

Philip Anderson, the organizer of the event, posted photos to social media of his bloody mouth with a front tooth missing and another hanging loosely. He said anti-fascist protesters attacked him “for no reason.”

The photo tells it all. Far from being upset about it, he's reveling in playing the victim. Couldn't ask for better result! I bet privately he is (or should be) thanking the counter-protesters for raising his profile - and for not sanctioning him properly.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I'm happy to defend leftist free speech. Show me a case where leftist free speech is under actual attack.

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

**crickets**

Maybe this was missed?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

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.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm happy to defend leftist free speech. Show me a case where leftist free speech is under actual attack.

Vehicle Attacks Rise As Extremists Target Protesters

ETA: Two men arrested for allegedly attacking counterprotesters at pro-Trump rally at Capitol

 

[smartcooky]

Maybe this was missed?

I almost guarantee you it wasn't. I've yet to see Zig answer a post when the answer cannot be spun to fit his worldview.