“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Thermal]

Umm, you are defending his "expression."

I am not and have said so repeatedly.

He ain't no outlier either, the black bloc exposure program has video of him hitting at least four other people, including during the milo riot.

Out of the huge crowds of protesters, there are a few outliers who's actions are utterly indefensible. Canton's are repulsively criminal, wholeheartedly agreed. But one guy out of hundreds is an outlier case, like the one guy who brought a loaded gun to a speech and shot an antifa.

There are numerous other masked scum using padlocks too.

Just expressing themselves! I read it on iskep.

Brush up on your reading comprehension. I said that they are using violence as a form of expression, not that it is legitimate nor that I personally condone it (I have said repeatedly that I do not). Another red herring?

 

[Thermal]

That's not even a requirement. There is no law against yelling fire in a crowded theater. This tired canard is constantly brought up by regressives as an excuse for their attacks on free speech. What they don't know is that this line was said in the context of a Supreme Court case that was dealing with government crackdowns on dissent ( the judge who said it supported said crackdowns) that was rightly overturned by a subsequent case.

You are referring to Brandenburg v Ohio partially overturning Schenck v U.S., I believe? From Wikipedia: 'The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Falsely yelling 'fire' in a dark crowded theater still meets this standard, but in any event the point was clear enough without descending to pedantics.

If anyone brings up "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", you can be sure they're an ignoramous.

Do tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

[Thermal]

Breaking things and assaulting people is not exercising free speech.



No. That's where they (and you, apparently) depart from reality. Violence is not "expression". It is violence.

For the love of God, can you please just read the posts? I have said repeatedly that I do not support the violence, and I am not arguing in favor of it in any way. Violence is a form of expression, whether you can wrap your head around that or not. But it is not a legitimate or legal form. And it is not excusable in the context of any of the altercations posted here.

I am arguing that multiple posters are fully condemning one side and whitewashing the other, who are doing damn near the same thing. First we heard how antifa wore masks, so they were of course the bad guys. Trump supporters are photographed wearing masks, then the goalposts get moved. Much ado is made of one ******* with a U-lock, but a Trump supporter shooting an antifa at a rally is utterly ignored. Now it's the free speech of Ann Coulter under fire. IMO, antifa do not care about her one way or the other. They care about who is going to come to her party (for instance, militia and biker groups who openly relish the opportunity to beat people up).

 

[Tony]

You are referring to Brandenburg v Ohio partially overturning Schenck v U.S., I believe? From Wikipedia: 'The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Falsely yelling 'fire' in a dark crowded theater still meets this standard, but in any event the point was clear enough without descending to pedantics

Your point was based on a falsehood that was itself based on the past existence of a bad law that was overturned. It's no differnent than a racist arguing for interment camps for certain ethnic groups because the US Supreme Court upheld internement camps at some point in the past.

 

[Thermal]

So you mean they are all for free speech if they agree with it, and will use violence against those whose free speech they disagree with. That means that they are unequivocally against free speech.

Point taken, but that thought has a brother: the tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.

I think the antifa believe they have heard the neo-nazi speech load and clear. They are not trying to stop them from speaking, but acting in their community. From bringing the hate and violence that white supremacists have doled out for decades. While they may be misguided, I am at least trying to understand their position instead of generically demonizing them and whitewashing the neos as wholesome free speech advocates.

 

[Thermal]

Actually, it is: anarchists will lose to fascists every single time.

It could be argued that some eighteenth century colonists scored a win.

 

[Thermal]

No kidding. This thread has gone off the rails because one poster thinks that violence has a place in our society when it comes to free speech.

And so does the law, as well as every member who has posted in this thread except for you, MostlyDead.

*MostlyDead glances at caveman1917's prolific postings*

Appeal to popularity. Beats the red herrings, moving goalposts, confirmation bias and the other stuff, at least from the standpoint of variety.

Of course, you are wrong. I have said repeatedly that I do not agree with antifa on this. Looking at the situation from their perspective does not mean I share all their views.

To all: Can we somehow let the discussion move on to other aspects of this - things that are actually controversial?

ETA: never mind, ain't gonna happen.

Suggestion: just do so. I'm all for dropping the silly red herrings and deliberate misinterpretations.

 

[Thermal]

Berkeley is on hairtrigger nowadays. Maybe in the interests of public safety Antifa could hold off? Do they have anything to do that is entirely
lawful? They have every right to legitimate protest. But should they as adults not accept full responsibility for engaging in unlawful behaviour
that they know will definitely be violent?

Point taken. I am holding a public figure like Coulter to a higher standard than a street brawler.

But I think you are missing the point of antifa and neo-nazis. They are not being reasonable, nor do they want to be. They want to throw down. I give Coulter the benefit of the doubt that, unlike antifa and the white supremacists, she is not deliberately bringing the pain.

 

[rdwight]

Free speech has no truer friend than yours truly, but I do not consider this an issue of free speech. It is closer to inciting a mob (two actually) to violence, obviously not protected free speech. But more to the point, it really has nothing to do with speech at all. Look at the participants on both sides at these rallys now: masks and battle gear. They are coming because, as the imported bikers and militia commented, the look forward to enjoying busting some heads. They are coming because, as the antifa advertisements said, come punch your favorite nazi. It has nothing to do with Milo, Coulter, or any of the mindless drivel they spew, and certainly nothing to do with free speech. That would require someone in attendance giving a fat rat's ass about what she says.

I just can't get on board with your mindset. I understand it but I just find it to be incorrect. You say you are trying to understand antifa, which is something we should all strive to do in relation to opposing views, but what I see is you trying to justify their actions, not understand them. There is a stark difference as you well understand. I know why antifa does what they do. I don't try to defend them. You do.

This is an issue of free speech. You can attempt to overlook it but that is the basic premise of what we are discussing. Inciting a mob as you put forward is not at all the situation. She is attempting to speak with her opinions. The actions of others in response have nothing to do with the content of her message. If that is the case, she has no ability to incite anything at all.

You can't classify yourself as a defender of free speech and then give caveats to when it is appropriate. You either defend it or you don't. It really is that simple.

 

[Thermal]

That a lot of words to say you believe due to the content of her speech she doesn't have the right to talk.

Then you forgot to read them. Specifically, I said the predictable violence would be unrelated to her speech. And I have said repeatedly that she has every right to hawk her tripe. Encouraging a socially beneficial alteration to her schedule has nothing to do with revoking rights.

She had zero responsibility for any violence that is incurred and no responsibility to censor herself due to the tantrums of these idiots.

Think of it this way.

How would you react if I said that if you ever post again I'm going to kill someone. Is it now your responsibility to never post again to save this person's life? Or would it be one hundred per cent on me if I chose to kill someone because you want to post your opinion?

I hear you, but the analogy is more than a little off. No one is saying she can never speak again. Just suggesting that altering the scheduled time might help keep order. And saying you would kill someone is a far cry from two groups fighting together.

Come to think of it, if you said that two people would mutually get into a fistfight if I posted today instead of tomorrow, I would probably not post till tomorrow. It's no skin off my back and the world might be a little more peaceful.

 

[Ziggurat]

For the love of God, can you please just read the posts? I have said repeatedly that I do not support the violence

I didn't say you supported the violence. I said that you consider it expression:

Violence is a form of expression

And you just confirmed it.

But it's not, not in the context of free speech, which is what you were talking about. When talking about free speech, labeling something as "expression" implies that it deserves some sort of protection. But violence doesn't. You claim you don't support violence, but you keep on making excuses for it.

I am arguing that multiple posters are fully condemning one side and whitewashing the other

You don't need to try to cast violence as speech in order to do that.

Now it's the free speech of Ann Coulter under fire. IMO, antifa do not care about her one way or the other. They care about who is going to come to her party (for instance, militia and biker groups who openly relish the opportunity to beat people up).

This simply isn't credible. Coulter has been on the speaking circuit for years. Her message today isn't any different than it was years ago. She didn't used to attract violence at her speeches. What changed? The misnamed "antifascist" protests.

The radical left has been trying to shut down conservative speakers at campuses across the country, because of the content of their speech. Coulter isn't the only one, Milo isn't the only one. The radical right has now started to react to that agenda, and you don't like its reaction. That's reasonable enough. But you're trying to reverse cause and effect here. You're trying to say that the radical left is simply reacting to the radical right. But that's wrong. That's backwards. That isn't how this all developed. You don't get to excuse them on the basis that they're just responding to a problem when they created the problem in the first place.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, Coulter supporter, the people who are going to actually occupy the seats while she does her shtick.

So are you asserting there is going to be a counter protest, that the Coulterites are going to bring along a bunch of scary people to "express themselves" on antifa's middle class asses ? If so, I'd like to se some evidence. A flyer, a Facebook post, anything that would pass as a call to arms.

Maybe they're just going to let the cops handle this one. The cops who I'm sure are polishing up their batons and making sure the spare batteries for the tasers have a full charge.

If recent events are any indicator, yep I'm pretty sure there's gonna be one of them there alty-cations. It may be that the neo-nazis and antifa have all spontaneously found religion and are currently singing kumbayah together, but I'm not putting any money on it. Berkeley admin seems to concur.

 

[Thermal]

Once it turns to action it is no longer free speech. Very simple concept, would you like links to the differences between talking and acting?

Not necessary, but thank you for your thoughtful offer. Would you like some links for how multiple kinds of action have been found to be protected as expression by the courts?

 

[Ziggurat]

It could be argued that some eighteenth century colonists scored a win.

Indeed they did. But they were very much not anarchists. Are you confused on that point?

 

[Polaris]

I visualise Alex Jones typing like that.

Hillary Clinton invented mosquitos!! She and Obama raped and beheaded the Easter Bunny!

Yeah, I can see it too.

 

[Thermal]

I just can't get on board with your mindset. I understand it but I just find it to be incorrect. You say you are trying to understand antifa, which is something we should all strive to do in relation to opposing views, but what I see is you trying to justify their actions, not understand them. There is a stark difference as you well understand. I know why antifa does what they do. I don't try to defend them. You do.

Thanks for your candor. Please understand, I am not defending them, but I am trying to see things through their eyes (not just superficially 'get' them). I think the majority of posts here see something about a speech being cancelled and say 'oh, it's a free speech thing. Respond with canned answer number 6'. I am trying to present the evidently unpopular POV that antifa have no interest at all in Coulter. They are gravely concerned with the KEK and Pepe flag-waving, White Pride t-shirt wearing crew that accompanies conservative rallys. I am trying to throw that POV in contrast to the postings.

This is an issue of free speech. You can attempt to overlook it but that is the basic premise of what we are discussing. Inciting a mob as you put forward is not at all the situation. She is attempting to speak with her opinions. The actions of others in response have nothing to do with the content of her message. If that is the case, she has no ability to incite anything at all.

Et tu, rdwight? Nobody cares at all about Coulter or whatever she says. Look at the postings at Berkeley Antifa and other fb postings. They cite where the event is, and which nazis are expected, but the conventional speakers are not a topic. They don't matter.

Re: incitement. Right, she does not directly incite anything. She is a non-entity in this, after all. It is perhaps better referred to as indirect enabling. Her only significance is providing the venue and opening up the cage.

You can't classify yourself as a defender of free speech and then give caveats to when it is appropriate. You either defend it or you don't. It really is that simple.

I do defend it, and probably take it farther than most. But for the umpteenth time, Coulter can say or not say whatever she wants. No one cares. The issue is, as with Milo, who is likely to come to the party. Based on recent events, Antifa will be there to meet Nazis. If it was Coulter and the Berkeley Republican Club, there would be no problems. The peripheral attendees are the entire issue here, not Ann and her profound thoughts.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed they did. But they were very much not anarchists. Are you confused on that point?

Not at all. 'Anarchist' has different definitions, the most basic being approximately 'without rulers'. The American Founding Fathers could be viewed as anarchists in their ideas about a form of government without a King.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not at all. 'Anarchist' has different definitions, the most basic being approximately 'without rulers'. The American Founding Fathers could be viewed as anarchists in their ideas about a form of government without a King.

That's a lousy definition. Even at the time, there were better words to describe their beliefs.

 

[Thermal]

That's a lousy definition. Even at the time, there were better words to describe their beliefs.

Oh for God's sake. Merriam Webster's definition of anarchist:

1: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

Do you seriously think this definition could not be reasonably applied to the Founding Fathers?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchist

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh for God's sake. Merriam Webster's definition of anarchist:



Do you seriously think this definition could not be reasonably applied to the Founding Fathers?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchist

No, I don't. They did not rebel against ANY authority, but only a specific one. They did not oppose authority in general, as that definition requires.