[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

[Saelune]

Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

Lots of people were fine abusing others because it was legal to do so. Slavery for example, or the criminalization of homosexuality.

But then that is why arguing that something is fine because of its legality is just an immoral stance to take. I can only assume that anyone who argues justice based purely on legality would have supported slavery back then.

 

[Abomination]

Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

 

[Saelune]

Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

What about slavery?

 

[Abomination]

Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

What about slavery?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

 

[Saelune]

Those barriers are not presently being created by Neo-Nazis though.

Not solely, no, but racist authoritarianism isn't an issue totally separate from Neo-Nazis, oddly enough.

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

What about slavery?

No. But I would be fine with the way it was passed, provided it was passed in the confines of the law.

And this is why I oppose you and why I oppose 'moderates' and why something being legal doesn't mean it is ok. You just justified slavery, you just justified slavery just because some people decided to make it legal to oppress and dehumanize entire peoples.

Abomination, seriously, I want you to go re-evaluate your entire point of view on this one, I really really really want to believe you can realize why what you just said is a terrible thing and why I refuse to back down when you and others who agree with you say the things you say.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

Do you really want to bring up state-sanctioned vigilantism against political parties and organizations in the same breath as Nazism? Really?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Oh, and since what I'm about to say is directly relevant to this exact minute in history, I know what the talking point by default response to my own post will be.

Does any given act of hazardous and "hateful" speech violate the imminent lawless action standard? No? Then it's fucking free speech, period. Let's just give a quick overview of SCOTUS jurisprudence on "dangerous" speech real fast.

Schenck v. US (1919). Anti-draft protest against US involvement in WWI. Clear and present danger status, Schenck's arrest upheld.

Whitney v. California (1927). Right to form and join a Communist party in the US. Clear and present danger upheld, state action upheld.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Anti-draft protest against US involvement in Vietnam. Imminent lawless action standard, state action overturned.

Hess v. Indiana (1973). Anti-war protest against Vietnam. Imminent lawless action standard, Hess' conviction overturned.

If you'll excuse me, I now have to go find out if we're about to get in a shooting war with Iran.

 

[Trunkage]

If you'll excuse me, I now have to go find out if we're about to get in a shooting war with Iran.

Firstly, you're more likely to be attacked by locals than foreigners (unless you invade). Worrying about Iran is a priority but not the main one. Secondly, this is the war America voted for in 2016. Why are you worried about it when this is what at least half the voters wanted. And absurdly, Trump hate speech has lead us here. It's what you get when you let hate speech run rampant.

 

[CaitSeith]

I am not a libertarian, I am not a conservative, I am not a democrat, I am not a republican.

You're just the status quo that authoritarians use as stepping stone.

 

[Silvanus]

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

This doesn't mean very much, considering we're discussing where you believe the limitations of the law should lie.

In short, "no shit".

 

[Saelune]

Why are you worried about it when this is what at least half the voters wanted. And absurdly, Trump hate speech has lead us here. It's what you get when you let hate speech run rampant.

Less than half of half of voters voted for Trump, but that's also why Trump being President is such a problem. For a party that hates bending for minorities, they forget that THEY are a minority.

But yes, Trump is a vile hate speecher who has no right to hide behind calls for civility. It is hypocritical to call for civility as a Trump supporter.

 

[Marik2]

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Firstly, you're more likely to be attacked by locals than foreigners (unless you invade). Worrying about Iran is a priority but not the main one. Secondly, this is the war America voted for in 2016. Why are you worried about it when this is what at least half the voters wanted. And absurdly, Trump hate speech has lead us here. It's what you get when you let hate speech run rampant.

Clearly you either fail to understand, or vastly more likely, would prefer to not discuss my point. No sale. Here, let me bold face it so neither you nor anyone else who might view this thread make any mistake about what it is or may be.

Laws that curtail free speech for any reason are vastly more likely to by employed to silence political dissent against the government, preserve the political status quo, and/or perpetuate oppression than otherwise. This includes war protest as I have just described, the right to join and support political parties that oppose or simply criticize those in power, and indeed, even civil liberties and rights movements.

Like for example in Hague v. CIO (1939), when Jersey City mayor Frank Hague attempted to use city ordinances to curtail the rights of workers to assemble in public spaces to organize and protest, claiming the CIO was a Communist and seditious organization.

Or how about Yates v. US (1957), when members of the Communist Party were jailed simply for membership, on the grounds they were advocating the overthrow of the federal government.

Don't even get me started on fucking Jehovah's Witnesses. Those guys really love their free speech.

Or, since certain folks in here love to talk about civil rights and how oppressive the government is, how about...

...Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...protesting.

...Cox v. Louisiana (1965), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were tear gassed and arrested for...protesting peaceful civil rights demonstrators' arrests.

...Adderly v. Florida (1966), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...protesting peaceful civil rights demonstrators' arrests.

...Brown v. Louisiana (1966), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...staging a peaceful sit-in at a public library.

The idea of using the power of the state to silence dissent is hardly new in the US, as it precedes the civil rights movement and rise of fascism by nearly 200 years. The Alien and Sedition Acts having been passed in 1798 and signed into law by John Adams, our second President.

You see, here's the problem (uh-oh, here come those nasty-blasty bold texties!). Free speech laws that allows civil rights protest are the same ones that allow Nazi protest. Allowances for content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech come at the speaker's peril, especially if speakers are members of an historically-oppressed group.

 

[Saelune]

Nazis caused the Holocaust. Any groups that causes a Holocaust deserve no rights.

 

[Abomination]

I believe a group should be allowed to preach or promote a political leaning, no matter how abhorrent or even contrary to the very system that allows them the freedom to express such contrary policy, so long as they do so within the bounds of the law.

This doesn't mean very much, considering we're discussing where you believe the limitations of the law should lie.

In short, "no shit".

Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

 

[Trunkage]

Firstly, you're more likely to be attacked by locals than foreigners (unless you invade). Worrying about Iran is a priority but not the main one. Secondly, this is the war America voted for in 2016. Why are you worried about it when this is what at least half the voters wanted. And absurdly, Trump hate speech has lead us here. It's what you get when you let hate speech run rampant.

Clearly you either fail to understand, or vastly more likely, would prefer to not discuss my point. No sale. Here, let me bold face it so neither you nor anyone else who might view this thread make any mistake about what it is or may be.

Laws that curtail free speech for any reason are vastly more likely to by employed to silence political dissent against the government, preserve the political status quo, and/or perpetuate oppression than otherwise. This includes war protest as I have just described, the right to join and support political parties that oppose or simply criticize those in power, and indeed, even civil liberties and rights movements.

Like for example in Hague v. CIO (1939), when Jersey City mayor Frank Hague attempted to use city ordinances to curtail the rights of workers to assemble in public spaces to organize and protest, claiming the CIO was a Communist and seditious organization.

Or how about Yates v. US (1957), when members of the Communist Party were jailed simply for membership, on the grounds they were advocating the overthrow of the federal government.

Don't even get me started on fucking Jehovah's Witnesses. Those guys really love their free speech.

Or, since certain folks in here love to talk about civil rights and how oppressive the government is, how about...

...Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...protesting.

...Cox v. Louisiana (1965), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were tear gassed and arrested for...protesting peaceful civil rights demonstrators' arrests.

...Adderly v. Florida (1966), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...protesting peaceful civil rights demonstrators' arrests.

...Brown v. Louisiana (1966), where peaceful civil rights demonstrators were arrested for...staging a peaceful sit-in at a public library.

The idea of using the power of the state to silence dissent is hardly new in the US, as it precedes the civil rights movement and rise of fascism by nearly 200 years. The Alien and Sedition Acts having been passed in 1798 and signed into law by John Adams, our second President.

You see, here's the problem (uh-oh, here come those nasty-blasty bold texties!). Free speech laws that allows civil rights protest are the same ones that allow Nazi protest. Allowances for content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech come at the speaker's peril, especially if speakers are members of an historically-oppressed group.

Trump warned you that he was going to war three years ago. He has built the case through hate since then.

For the love of gods, don't be suprised that America goes to war. You have been warned by literally everyone, including Trump. If you are worried about it, do something.

Also, did I call here to get rid of hate speech? NO. Your point is that Ameica is allowed to have Free Speech. I said nothing against this.. So.... Are you just misunderstanding or not willing to discuss my point.

I DID pointed out the result of hate speech. If your so offended that this somehow is misconstrued into anti-Free Speech, that's on you. If you live in an imaginary world where speech has no impact on the world, that's on you. Trump won ONLY on speech, just like every other president. Speech changes the world.

So why are you bringing cases to me? Sure Trump can say what he wants. But speech doesn't come without consequences. It just comes without consequences from the government. The public should hold him accountable and not just through voting. Little has been done to stop Trump from going to war, so

If this war is coming, its becuase we did nothing. That is my point. It's not like Trump has been hiding his intentions for at least 3 years.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nazis caused the Holocaust. Any groups that causes a Holocaust deserve no rights.

And the whole of this argument comes down to, no matter how much I agree, this is a subjective viewpoint and laws should ideally be objective.

Edit:

Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Isn't suppression only something the government can realistically achieve? The only method the public has to combat ideas is counter protest, which you seem to agree with. What does the suppression you speak of actually look like?

 

[Trunkage]

Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Isn't suppression only something the government can realistically achieve? The only method the public has to combat ideas is counter protest, which you seem to agree with. What does the suppression you speak of actually look like?

Depends if you are only concerned about mass suppression or smaller group or individual suppression. Criminal gangs are pretty good at it for smaller groups, as well as corporations. Military contractors are well know for suppression in other countries. Neo-Nazis and Antifa are also good at it.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Trump-a-Lump-a-Doodle-Dump

Your TDS doesn't negate the fact war with Iran has been something Republicans have advocated since the Bush administration.


Not that this has been an ongoing issue since Operation Ajax [https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/64-years-later-cia-finally-releases-details-of-iranian-coup-iran-tehran-oil/] 66 years ago, when the corporation now known as BP decided profits mattered less than state sovereignty, and had to cry to two different NATO powers to get their way. But hey, you wanna mouth-fart about Trump, be my guest.

If you are worried about it, do something.

I was already corralled into cages and surrounded by militarized police at one point in my life for daring to suggest perhaps the US shouldn't be waging wars of aggression in the middle east, on behalf of no one but the fossil fuel and defense industry.

Once again, since the point seems to not be sticking, the same Constitutional provisions that nominally protect anti-war protest -- Comity, Equal Protection, Due Process, Assembly and Speech -- are the same ones that protect political protest of all kinds. Restrict one, you restrict them all. And indeed, while the Bush administration was a black mark against the right to protest, one must absolutely acknowledge this is no [https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill]. partisan [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-28/free-speech-cage-keeps-anti-hillary-protesters-away-dnc-convention]. issue [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-free-speech-graveyard-a_b_114045].

And indeed, while there is a vested interest in ensuring chaos such as that which erupted during the 1968 DNC never happens again, restraining speech is not the way to do it. For Democrats or Republicans. Perhaps try not being corrupt as fuck?

And once again, since the point seems to not stick, people who want 'hate speech' criminalized aren't the people who get to decide what 'hate speech' is. The Weimar Republic had plenty of 'protection' from hate speech, dangerous and violent rhetoric, public protest, and hate crimes. Then the Nazis got to decide what that meant and what should be done about it.

Hate speech legislation is like leaving a crate of live hand grenades in a room full of howler monkeys.

Are you just misunderstanding or not willing to discuss my point...If your so offended that this somehow is misconstrued into anti-Free Speech, that's on you.

I'm saying you have no point. Your point is a complete non-starter. It's not even worth discussing, because it's unadulterated garbage.

You're either for speech, or you're against speech. There is no middle ground. Being only in favor of speech you like, is not being in favor of speech at all. As Noam Chomsky famously pointed out, Hitler, Stalin, and their inner circles were all for free speech, as long as it was speech they liked. If you truly support speech, then you support all speech, but especially speech you hate.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Isn't suppression only something the government can realistically achieve? The only method the public has to combat ideas is counter protest, which you seem to agree with. What does the suppression you speak of actually look like?

Depends if you are only concerned about mass suppression or smaller group or individual suppression. Criminal gangs are pretty good at it for smaller groups, as well as corporations. Military contractors are well know for suppression in other countries. Neo-Nazis and Antifa are also good at it.

At that point I'd imagine these groups would be breaking the law to achieve this and I'm pretty sure we're all on the side of finding and prosecuting such groups, so I didn't really bother mentioning them. Except for I guess the military contractors, but that whole thing is a muddy scenario.