Racist groups vs Free Speech, i've converted...

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How funny is it to hear rightwing bigots of various stripes demanding their constitutional right to oppose constitutional rights?

That's better than you commies denying constitutional rights so you can further deny constitutional rights.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As many other fellow posters, I too face that dilemma as to whether fully allow KKK members, WS and neo-Nazis to openly spew their hatred or opt to stop their Constitution-allowed speech.

It is a tough conundrum. The problem rests with how that hate speech manages to recruit gullible and somewhat ignorant young people to join in that hate-filled ideology.

The best comparison I can make is whether we would opt to STOP radical Muslims to recruit disenfranchised young people to become terrorists for a dubious cause....After all, we sometime monitor what may go on in a Mosque to intervene if that environment is spewing hate filled and violent behaviors......

We all must make a choice regarding our love of free expression, and our desire to be safe from the spreading of more hatred.

As a free society that reveres its First Amendment all kinds are allowed to speak but when those speakers cross the line and incite violence or promote terrorism they need to be arrested.....

This is what happened in Charlottesville.....they crossed the line into violence and they should have been arrested....

The Democrats and the MSM are ignoring that fine little detail....

 

[deanrd]

Hilarious! To the GOP, the anti Fascists have become the bad guys.

 

[conserveguy877]

These unhinged libs twisting things on what is free speech is helping President Trump prove his point. And he's disavowed over and over for many years already.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hilarious! To the GOP, the anti Fascists have become the bad guys.

You don't know squat...

 

[NYcarbineer]

1000 to 1. That's the approximate ratio of anti-Nazis to Nazis who showed up in Boston today.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections; acting on that hate is not.

Moreover, the right to freedom of expression is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to say anything one wishes at anytime, anywhere.

First Amendment jurisprudence affords government the authority to place reasonable restrictions on speech consistent with that jurisprudence – restrictions on speech that are content neutral and ensure ample alternate channels of expression are perfectly Constitutional, for example.

Most importantly, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private organizations.

Consequently, one private person cannot ‘violate’ the right of free speech of another private person.

That’s why private persons or organizations who oppose the hate speech of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right are not ‘violating’ the free speech rights of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right – the notion that they are is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Last, those who oppose the hate speech of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right have no desire to ‘silence’ or otherwise ‘prevent’ the expression of hate speech, neither through official government action nor through private acts of ‘intimidation’ or ‘coercion’ – to maintain otherwise is a lie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In World War II, we crushed Nazism by force of arms.

I wonder, with a movement in the US to revive Nazism, why shouldn't we be able to do the same, by the same method?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1000 to 1. That's the approximate ratio of anti-Nazis to Nazis who showed up in Boston today.

So? Are we to be surprised? We know the Nazis are a tiny insignificant group. It's the Leftist Antifa, etc. groups that are becoming the problem....

 

[Yarddog]

It's been a crazy week and i've engaged in many heated discussions about the events of Charlottesville. I have to admit that i've been greatly conflicted about my anti-racist feelings and my support of free speech. I flirted dangerously close in many discussions to promoting the shutdown of speech for white supremacist groups. I saw them as threats, conveyers of hate speech and given their history which has resulted in millions of deaths I was ok with suppressing their speech and shutting down their causes by whatever means necessary. But, I've had a change of heart.

I think we can be smarter than that and not empower these assholes to strip us of our freedoms. It is a slippery slope once you start suppressing speech. We have legal censorship in a variety of areas which i'm fine with, but shutting down groups from holding rallies, having websites and protesting is only going to lead to bad things. Note that I in no way support any provocation of violence or destruction resulting from rallies or protests. If that happens then shut them down immediately and make arrests.

I would promote fighting these douchebags by ignoring them and minimizing them in a SMART way. Don't lower yourself to fight with them and fuel their cause. Take away their statues and flags that empower them in public forums and show them that our communities outright reject their hateful views. Or construct monuments and statues of civil rights leaders next to the confederate statues and tell the story about how we prevailed and fought agains their hate, and WE WON. Ignore their rallies and don't give them the exposure or attention that they crave. Speak louder and stronger for equality.

I still think that the Presidents comments that minimized the ugliness of the Nazi's and White Supremacists were wildly inappropriate. He tried to spread the blame to the left for the anti-protests and it deluded his message of condemnation that should have been crystal clear in opposition of the hate groups. He should have spread the message in a better way to fight against it. I don't want to relitigate Trumps actions in this OP but I did want to share my change of opinion and open up a discussion about productive ways to move forward that combats the hate and preserves our right of free speech.

i agree with most of your sentiments, but taking down every statue is still censorship and if its ok to do that with statues you consider representing the slavery of the old south then whats to say other art forms should not be banned as well? why is racism the only thing that matters?

what about art that mocks or criticizes religion? or art work that is offensive to other people for other reasons? You would have to be open to removing all that as well.

 

[Hum Dinger]

When people publicly profess idea which are clearly contradictory to the most fundamental founding principals of America, it should be considered sedition.

Especially when they are members or allies with a political organization which has engaged in promoting the destruction of the U.S. government and has engaged in genocide (i.e. the KKK and NAZIs)

Many people considered to be Alt-Right do not engage in promoting these ideas, but they should be careful to not be associated with these groups.

 

[depotoo]

Anti-fascists? What a joke. They were co-opted by fascists decades upon decades ago.

Hilarious! To the GOP, the anti Fascists have become the bad guys.

 

[The Original Tree]

My Intellect is what is driving my argument along with the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 9th and 14th Amendments and the damn Bill Of Rights.

Public Monuments are the property of The Public and you cannot remove them without Due Process!

But Fascist Social Justice Warriors are doing this very thing! If I lived in any of these communities there would be a major lawsuit filed seeking damages in THE MILLIONS if a public monument were removed!



AMENDMENT V
Share
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


AMENDMENT IX
Share
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 3
Share
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

RESIST THIS BITCH!

There is no discussing Facism, Book Burning, Banning Movies and Literature, & Destroying Historical Monuments for political gain.

So Fuck that shit you serpent tongued Devil. Where was The Left on this issue when they had a Super Majority?

It wasn't an issue so take your fake outrage and shove it up your Fake Ass!

Your Party Leadership already made comments about tearing down The Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument.

Your party also made commets that they feel The Constitution is an Antiquated and Outdated document that no longer pertains to current America.

Welcome to Venezuela!

We are not going to let your ugly camel head in to our tent.

So Forget it.
Discussion Over!

Go buy some gasoline and a lighter and start your "Book Drive" Fireman!

If you are a biased Ignorant Bigot who only gives a fuck about winning an election and is willing to sacrifice American Freedoms, Divide The Country only because you only Value Political Power, I'd say that's your personal Malfunction and your biased interpretation will suit your agenda.

No Fucking Statue Stopped Barak Obama From Being President in a country where his ethnicity only represents13% of the population.

Fuck your political aspirations for 2018 and 2020 and burn them on the pile of books you want banned. Then throw yourself on the fire with them.

I'll pay to build a monument to your stupidity and your Fascist Agenda.

Where was The Fucking Neo Fascist Left with this issue when Obama was President and The Left held a Super Majority?

Fucking Fascists Hucksters. This is nothing but a Political Publicity Stunt!

Do you know why there are statues of General Lee in both the North and South?

Of source you don't cuz.. Talking Points!

Lee did not want to fight for The Union because he did not want to fight against his neighbors in his own state.

He and his wife ran a school for black children teaching reading and writing right out of their home in direct violation of laws passed by Democrats outlawing such schools and dared anyone to come stop him.

He also organized and paid for slaves before during and after the war to be relocated to Liberia, so you could legitimately argue that Lee Founded Liberia.

Lastly, Lee had the materials and manpower to wage war for another 2-5 years, but for the good of the country decided to end the war, and then spent the rest of his life being an activist for reconciliation.

But by All Means Let's Tear down his statues because The Democrats are desperate to take back The House and Senate and have no fucking message at all for The American People but Divide and Conquor and Kill The President.

Fucking Ignorant Savages!

You still miss the point. A statue is a symbol and a monument, it is not a biography about every aspect of a persons life. Which is why the argument about Washington and Jefferson being slave owners is not a strong one. There are simple questions that need to be asked... What does this statue stand for? Who is it celebrating or symbolizing? If the answer is that it is a symbol of racism and confederate values then take that fucker down. If it is part of a better story and that is accurately communicated then keep it. If there is a conflict in how it is interpreted then put it in a museum so the full story can be told. I know a little about Lee and I know that he did some good things for his community before and after the war... The question is, is a statue of him in a park symbolizing a racist confederate value or a historical figure?

Calm down drama queen, we are just having a discussion. I've never giving the statues a second thought. If I walked by one i'd probably give it a look then keep on walking. If I notice that a black person saw that statue as a racist symbol or if I saw a KKK group taking photos by it then i'd think twice. Thats what this discussion has done, brought I different perspective to my eyes. I can't deny that those who see those statues as racist symbols have a point in many cases. Most of those statues were erected during a time when the south was instituting Jim Crow laws and making a point that whites still rule the south. That is disgusting and unAmerican. So if there are statues or symbols, like the confederate flag, that celebrate white power in the USA then I have no problem taking them down. I also really like the idea of erecting some Union monuments or black soldiers triumphing over the confederates next to the statues to give context in a way that fits better with our values.

Wow, talk about letting your emotions hijack your intellect. You are a shining example of that... A real snowball. If your done ranting and want to get back to the subject at hand, not relitigating the past and accusing me of things that people I don't know or agree with said, then we can talk. Im sorry to say I don't have much faith in your ability to have a rational debate though. Try taking a walk or something... get some fresh air.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections; acting on that hate is not.

Moreover, the right to freedom of expression is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to say anything one wishes at anytime, anywhere.

First Amendment jurisprudence affords government the authority to place reasonable restrictions on speech consistent with that jurisprudence – restrictions on speech that are content neutral and ensure ample alternate channels of expression are perfectly Constitutional, for example.

Most importantly, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private organizations.

Consequently, one private person cannot ‘violate’ the right of free speech of another private person.

That’s why private persons or organizations who oppose the hate speech of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right are not ‘violating’ the free speech rights of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right – the notion that they are is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Last, those who oppose the hate speech of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right have no desire to ‘silence’ or otherwise ‘prevent’ the expression of hate speech, neither through official government action nor through private acts of ‘intimidation’ or ‘coercion’ – to maintain otherwise is a lie.

Are you kidding? ...those on the Left who oppose "hate-speech" (according to their definitions) are desirous of shutting it down.....get real.....

 

[Peach]

Hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections; acting on that hate is not.

Moreover, the right to freedom of expression is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to say anything one wishes at anytime, anywhere.

First Amendment jurisprudence affords government the authority to place reasonable restrictions on speech consistent with that jurisprudence – restrictions on speech that are content neutral and ensure ample alternate channels of expression are perfectly Constitutional, for example.

Most importantly, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private organizations.

Consequently, one private person cannot ‘violate’ the right of free speech of another private person.

That’s why private persons or organizations who oppose the hate speech of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right are not ‘violating’ the free speech rights of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right – the notion that they are is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Last, those who oppose the hate speech of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right have no desire to ‘silence’ or otherwise ‘prevent’ the expression of hate speech, neither through official government action nor through private acts of ‘intimidation’ or ‘coercion’ – to maintain otherwise is a lie.

Yes, and if allowed by applicable laws, they may demonstrate.

 

[bripat9643]

No it doesn't, dumbass. Show me in international law where confiscating property within your borders is an act of war.

Really? First it was a rebellion. When the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of that secession they said the Constitution proved it illegal. The President has powers to quell rebellion.

"It was a rebellion?" Says who? Secession is one thing. Rebellion is another. The Supreme court stuffed with Lincoln appointed hacks ruled incorrectly. Their ruling is packed full of claims that are obviously not true.

2nd What do you mean "international Law". That' doesn't usurp the Constitution no matter how much people like you want to burn that piece of paper when it doesn't say what you wish it would.

International law determines what are acts of war and what aren't acts of war. Confiscating property within your own borders is not an act of war. Furthermore, SC didn't confiscate the property. They simply said that Union troops couldn't reside there.

3rd. Those states signed contracts signing over the land to the US in perpetuity. They took over dozens of forts, bases, weapons Cache's, federal banks and mints, and ships. Those that the Union did not surrender were bombed. How's that not reason for war? Someone takes a bunch of nuclear subs and carriers and takes over fort Knox and start bombing Fort Benning Ga until we surrender it a day later, I'd hope the president fought back.

They signed over their property rights. They retained their legal jurisdiction. That gives them the right to evict the troops of a foreign government. If someone is in my living room refuses to leave when I ask him, I have the right to get my Glock automatic and escort him to the door.

While you may disagree with their ruling, it is still the law. We don't get to grab sharpies and black out the parts of the Constitution we don't like. The Constitution says the Supreme Court decides law and fact in matters of the state and Federal gov't. They did that. Just because you disagree doesn't matter.


And no they did not retain any legal jurisdiction over those properties. They signed over those properties as no longer property of the state, but property of the US Federal Government. Like you say, if someone walks on your property, you have the right to use force to evict them. We agree on that.

The issue isn't whether it's law. The issue is whether it's correct, and it sure as hell wasn't correct or justified by the flawed reasoning used in the decision. All you're saying is that you don't care about the facts. Your side won, and that's all that matters. Tell that to native Americans and see if they agree with you.

They signed over the property, not legal jurisdiction. If the cops are banging on your door telling you to let them in because you have a warrant, then you better do it. Owning the property does not give foreign governments the right to ignore the laws and commands of the government with legal jurisdiction. All you carpetbagger douche bags always try to blur the distinction between property and territory. That's because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Slade3200]

It's been a crazy week and i've engaged in many heated discussions about the events of Charlottesville. I have to admit that i've been greatly conflicted about my anti-racist feelings and my support of free speech. I flirted dangerously close in many discussions to promoting the shutdown of speech for white supremacist groups. I saw them as threats, conveyers of hate speech and given their history which has resulted in millions of deaths I was ok with suppressing their speech and shutting down their causes by whatever means necessary. But, I've had a change of heart.

I think we can be smarter than that and not empower these assholes to strip us of our freedoms. It is a slippery slope once you start suppressing speech. We have legal censorship in a variety of areas which i'm fine with, but shutting down groups from holding rallies, having websites and protesting is only going to lead to bad things. Note that I in no way support any provocation of violence or destruction resulting from rallies or protests. If that happens then shut them down immediately and make arrests.

I would promote fighting these douchebags by ignoring them and minimizing them in a SMART way. Don't lower yourself to fight with them and fuel their cause. Take away their statues and flags that empower them in public forums and show them that our communities outright reject their hateful views. Or construct monuments and statues of civil rights leaders next to the confederate statues and tell the story about how we prevailed and fought agains their hate, and WE WON. Ignore their rallies and don't give them the exposure or attention that they crave. Speak louder and stronger for equality.

I still think that the Presidents comments that minimized the ugliness of the Nazi's and White Supremacists were wildly inappropriate. He tried to spread the blame to the left for the anti-protests and it deluded his message of condemnation that should have been crystal clear in opposition of the hate groups. He should have spread the message in a better way to fight against it. I don't want to relitigate Trumps actions in this OP but I did want to share my change of opinion and open up a discussion about productive ways to move forward that combats the hate and preserves our right of free speech.

i agree with most of your sentiments, but taking down every statue is still censorship and if its ok to do that with statues you consider representing the slavery of the old south then whats to say other art forms should not be banned as well? why is racism the only thing that matters?

what about art that mocks or criticizes religion? or art work that is offensive to other people for other reasons? You would have to be open to removing all that as well.

Artistic expression is different than statues and monuments in public arenas. I don't like the thought of destroying anything, but maybe they belong in a museum where there can be better education and context about who they are and what they did. If they are to remain in the public arena then perhaps we can do better be erecting Union or black soldiers triumphing over the confederates. I just don't think any black person should need to walk through a plaza with a statue that symbolizes racism. Just as I understand why jews in Germany shouldn't have to walk by Nazi flags and Hitler statues

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What conundrum?

"congress shall make no law"

Pretty clear cut.

You can't regulate speech. Period.

Not so clear cut. All freedoms have limitations and must be practiced responsibly. You cant create a false public alarm through speech. You cant threaten bodily harm or defame someone with slander.

It gets a little dicey though when you have to consider the fact that people, especially minorities, feel threatened by Fascists in their streets whether or not there is a direct or explicit threat. Should we allow Islamic extremists to use freedom of speech to actively influence impressionable young people, knowing that doing so puts those youngsters- and the rest of us at risk of bodily harm?

I don't know this for a fact but I suspect that many of those who are marching today for freedom of speech believe that the alt right has a greater right to their speech than Muslims or other minorities do.

 

[bendog]

It's been a crazy week and i've engaged in many heated discussions about the events of Charlottesville. I have to admit that i've been greatly conflicted about my anti-racist feelings and my support of free speech. I flirted dangerously close in many discussions to promoting the shutdown of speech for white supremacist groups. I saw them as threats, conveyers of hate speech and given their history which has resulted in millions of deaths I was ok with suppressing their speech and shutting down their causes by whatever means necessary. But, I've had a change of heart.

I think we can be smarter than that and not empower these assholes to strip us of our freedoms. It is a slippery slope once you start suppressing speech. We have legal censorship in a variety of areas which i'm fine with, but shutting down groups from holding rallies, having websites and protesting is only going to lead to bad things. Note that I in no way support any provocation of violence or destruction resulting from rallies or protests. If that happens then shut them down immediately and make arrests.

I would promote fighting these douchebags by ignoring them and minimizing them in a SMART way. Don't lower yourself to fight with them and fuel their cause. Take away their statues and flags that empower them in public forums and show them that our communities outright reject their hateful views. Or construct monuments and statues of civil rights leaders next to the confederate statues and tell the story about how we prevailed and fought agains their hate, and WE WON. Ignore their rallies and don't give them the exposure or attention that they crave. Speak louder and stronger for equality.

I still think that the Presidents comments that minimized the ugliness of the Nazi's and White Supremacists were wildly inappropriate. He tried to spread the blame to the left for the anti-protests and it deluded his message of condemnation that should have been crystal clear in opposition of the hate groups. He should have spread the message in a better way to fight against it. I don't want to relitigate Trumps actions in this OP but I did want to share my change of opinion and open up a discussion about productive ways to move forward that combats the hate and preserves our right of free speech.

I understand they have a right to a parade permit, but whoever signed off on a nighttime parade with torches by the Jews needs to be moved to different employment. The city was obviously taken by surprise, and after the previous non-event of the Klan coven that's understandable. But in the future I hope any gathering of the Aryan Assholes is watched over by heavily armed cops in bodyarmor and those nifty military surplus mine resistant trucks

 

[Yarddog]

It's been a crazy week and i've engaged in many heated discussions about the events of Charlottesville. I have to admit that i've been greatly conflicted about my anti-racist feelings and my support of free speech. I flirted dangerously close in many discussions to promoting the shutdown of speech for white supremacist groups. I saw them as threats, conveyers of hate speech and given their history which has resulted in millions of deaths I was ok with suppressing their speech and shutting down their causes by whatever means necessary. But, I've had a change of heart.

I think we can be smarter than that and not empower these assholes to strip us of our freedoms. It is a slippery slope once you start suppressing speech. We have legal censorship in a variety of areas which i'm fine with, but shutting down groups from holding rallies, having websites and protesting is only going to lead to bad things. Note that I in no way support any provocation of violence or destruction resulting from rallies or protests. If that happens then shut them down immediately and make arrests.

I would promote fighting these douchebags by ignoring them and minimizing them in a SMART way. Don't lower yourself to fight with them and fuel their cause. Take away their statues and flags that empower them in public forums and show them that our communities outright reject their hateful views. Or construct monuments and statues of civil rights leaders next to the confederate statues and tell the story about how we prevailed and fought agains their hate, and WE WON. Ignore their rallies and don't give them the exposure or attention that they crave. Speak louder and stronger for equality.

I still think that the Presidents comments that minimized the ugliness of the Nazi's and White Supremacists were wildly inappropriate. He tried to spread the blame to the left for the anti-protests and it deluded his message of condemnation that should have been crystal clear in opposition of the hate groups. He should have spread the message in a better way to fight against it. I don't want to relitigate Trumps actions in this OP but I did want to share my change of opinion and open up a discussion about productive ways to move forward that combats the hate and preserves our right of free speech.

i agree with most of your sentiments, but taking down every statue is still censorship and if its ok to do that with statues you consider representing the slavery of the old south then whats to say other art forms should not be banned as well? why is racism the only thing that matters?

what about art that mocks or criticizes religion? or art work that is offensive to other people for other reasons? You would have to be open to removing all that as well.

Artistic expression is different than statues and monuments in public arenas. I don't like the thought of destroying anything, but maybe they belong in a museum where there can be better education and context about who they are and what they did. If they are to remain in the public arena then perhaps we can do better be erecting Union or black soldiers triumphing over the confederates. I just don't think any black person should need to walk through a plaza with a statue that symbolizes racism. Just as I understand why jews in Germany shouldn't have to walk by Nazi flags and Hitler statues

I would be all for erecting other statues as well, why not? but that seems to be something more of the past. The last several years it has been all about modern art.