[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Spoiler

https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/03/state-courts-find-teen-agers-fighting-words-unprotected/
for one,when we discussed this years before, I remember linking other recent cases but I am not really up for digging right now and I remembered this one off the top of my head.

Yes, and that was a state supreme court decision that was very narrow. It's possible to yell pretty much anything in such a way that it could constitute harassment. It also took the speech in context with his actions, so simply stating "I really dislike your racial group" in a neutral tone would not be unprotected under this courts ruling. To expand on this, if I were to follow a gay pride parade and yell slurs at them, I could be arrested for harrassment, but could not be arrested for simply burning a pride flag on public property, thank you Texas v. Johnson.

Civilized = Takes care of their people, provides quality healthcare, education, welfare to all the people and has the happiest people overall, has high standard of living for all it's people, not just the elite. Treating all the people well> treating the elite well. The better all the people are treated, and higher quality of life for everyone, the more civilized the nation is.

So I'm going to assume that you would consider most European countries civilized, along with maybe a few in Asia, and that most of the developing world is "uncivilized?" I might suggest that using that term is not the best.

We did stop the holding of numerous bad ideas through state force. We stop murder through state force, we stop child bride trafficking through state force, we stop child molesters through state force.

You're confusing words with actions. Just as the law treats real property [real estate] differently from personal property, so does the law treat speech acts different than physical acts. You can stop people from doing things through use of force. But you can't stop them from thinking it, and it's also a lost cause to stop them from speaking it. The Streisand effect is still a real thing. For example, when those black bloc brainets came out to try to stop Milo from speaking in California, they gave him a national microphone and the legitimate ability to play the victim (at least in the eyes of many in the public).

Their right's end where another's begins.

And my right to speech does not end with your feelings.

The right to not be abused takes priority over the idea that someone as the right to abuse others. Threatening people with ethnic cleansing is abuse and no they should not have a right to abuse others in this way.

Hypothetical far-flung future action is not a threat. And the legal/policy reasons for this are well founded. I'll give you another example: conventional marxists/MLs/MLMs talk about a dictatorship of the proletariat stage of their revolution, during which time certain liberties would be denied to the population (explicitly or implicit). I can't have communists arrested for advocating a communist revolution on the basis that such a revolution would, in the future, deprive me of my right to vote (or possibly my life considering their track record and my social class/political views). Likewise, just because some white nationalists are talking about an ethonostate does not give you the right to have them arrested because in the future, you would have your rights violated if somehow, they got in power. And if commies aren't your bag, I can give you a few other examples of hypothetical future action that doesn't cause problems.

By promoting white nationalism, they are actively threatening other constitutionally protected citizens and infringing upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I will give $100 to your favorite charity right now if you can show me where in the American constitution it says "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that this obligation is binding on other citizens and not the government

Verbal assault is a thing you know..
https://answers.uslegal.com/criminal/assault/23815/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-can-i-sue-for-verbal-assault-41907

Yes feelings do matter and if you cause another emotional distress, you very well could be liable for any health issues they have as a result of it. People are not entitled to go around threatening people and we have an abundant and long history of court ordered restraining orders issued to address that very subject. The threats made by the white nationalist platform should be treated no different than all of these other threats made that cause people harm. BTW causing people emotional distress does actually harm them physically, it is time the courts catch up with the science btw, they are out of date:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/stress-immune.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/09/22/349875448/best-to-not-sweat-the-small-stuff-because-it-could-kill-you

Yes, emotional distress can kill you.

The idea that tormenting others doesn't harm them is factually incorrect. Causing others stress by threatening them can actually cause more physical harm than just punching them in the first place.

White nationalists are not promoting a far flung future, they are promoting specific ethnic cleansing to be implemented now, as they stress the urgency of needing to act now because tomorrow will be too late.. Have you not actually listened to what they have been saying here? They are claiming this is an ethnic emergency and people must act now, some are promoting by any means possible, thus why we have had so many violently start murdering people already due to this rhetoric. They are calling for them to act now and in force, not later.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution, it is in the declaration of independence, I never said it was. The governments obligation to defend US citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic is in the constitutions as well as be responsible for the the general welfare of the people. If the government fails to protect it's citizens from white nationalists, they are failing in both regards.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

There are a good number of tribes that were/are far more civilized than some industrialized nations as they care for their people and have happier people and less inequality even if they do not ave much to share, they share what they do have to take care of their people. No they may not have the best of everything the world has to offer, but if the people are happier and everyone takes care of one another, they very well may be better off. Not taking care of all their people is what makes one less humane, less civilized.

So it's a very subjective criteria.

Words can also be actions depending on what those words are. For example, " swatting" is just words that lead to actions right?

Which is illegal, because the person is making false statements to law enforcement for the purpose of immediately endangering a person's life.

People cannot threaten to attack schools, no of course not they would be arrested. That is considered a terrorist threat.

Nope, a person cannot make an actual threat. They can, however, argue that such actions are morally justified. To further explain, I cannot say I am going to chop your head off right now, but a person could legally say that they agreed with ISIS and everything they are doing

People also should not be able to threaten to kidnap people and ship them off to another country either, as that also should be considered a terrorist threat.

If I threaten to kidnap you and send you abroad by force, that's a threat. But again, it has to be imminent lawless action, not some hypothetical future claim.

Threats should never be protected speech even if you say them calmly.

Many of the things you are describing as threats aren't, actually

The actual white nationalist platform is a terrorist threat in itself due to what those words are. They are calling for violence upon other people and that should be taken as a threat.

They're not calling for imminent lawless action. And despite the fact that they've been able to call for these things for decades now, they're nowhere near being able to actually carry them out.

There is no reason that should ever be protected, the only reason I see racist threats protected in the past is that it used to be socially acceptable to attack, abuse and threaten minorities as there was a widespread view that the constitution did not apply to them.

Or it's because many principled people agreed that the state should not have power to restrain speech to that degree, and they won numerous court rulings to that effect.

If the constitution now does protect minorities, then that means the people should also be protected from these threats just like we protect our schools from being threatened. They deserve the same protection as everyone else.

They have the same level of protection. You are disagreeing about if that level of protection is sufficient.

Keep in mind the white nationalists are not just threatening the adults here, they are threatening to attack families here, their children, parents, grandmothers.. everyone who does not fit into their delusional ethnostate with violence with the platform itself. That is not okay.

Just because a group may at one future point perform violence as part of its ideology does not legally justify restraining them from non-violent speech. Otherwise, you could lock up a lot more people on both the left and right.

Also, I don't know if you saw my edit of my last post in relation to one of your edits, but the offer still stands.

calling for violence upon people should be just as illegal as swatting and it also endangers people's lives. Context of course is the issue on the ISIS statement, joining or saying you are joining ISIS can still get you arrested, it is also illegal in the US to promote ISIS and spread their propaganda in the US as well and considered aiding a terrorist organization. Why is it that people have to threat more carefully when discussing ISIS than they d o white nationalists when White nationalists have carried out more attacks on US soil than everyone one else combined? Makes sense.

The white nationalist platform IS making immediate threats, not some future claim. They are stressing the urgency of taking action now, before " whites are outnumbered" that is not some future threat and I am not sure why you think they are not stressing the urgency. Maybe you are not listening to the same people I have been, remember it was my region the KKK and Nazis were arguing over who gets to hole a rally on what day here. I hear this stuff in person here, I get fliers. I hear what they are actually saying, they are acting like this is an emergency and people have to act today or it will be too late. This is " the future day" they used to talk about apparently.

You keep saying " future point". that is not the message they are delivering now. Maybe they used to deliver that message, now they are stressing this needs to happen now. In a few decades whites will be outnumbered so they see this as the time to act now and that is what they are doing now. I think you are thinking of how they behaved in the past, not the present.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Verbal assault is a thing you know..
https://answers.uslegal.com/criminal/assault/23815/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-can-i-sue-for-verbal-assault-41907

Which, as your link points out, deals with a threat of harm. So again, racist speech is one again not inherently unprotected.

Yes feelings do matter and if you cause another emotional distress, you very well could be liable for any health issues they have as a result of it.

IIED and NIED are torts that are almost impossible to win and the conduct on the defendant's part has to be exceptionally egregious. At most, these are civil wrongs.

. People are not entitled to go around threatening people and we have an abundant and long history of court ordered restraining orders issued to address that very subject

Again, you are confusing threats with hate speech.

The threats made by the white nationalist platform should be treated no different than all of these other threats made that cause people harm.

They are treated no different. If they call for imminent lawless action, they are illegal. If they don't, they aren't. It's the same across the board.

BTW causing people emotional distress does actually harm them physically, it is time the courts catch up with the science btw, they are out of date:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/stress-immune.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/09/22/349875448/best-to-not-sweat-the-small-stuff-because-it-could-kill-you

Yes, emotional distress can kill you.

As I said above, NIED and IIED are torts you could sue for.

The idea that tormenting others doesn't harm them is factually incorrect. Causing others stress by threatening them can actually cause more physical harm than just punching them in the first place.

So your argument seems to be that if speech causes a large deal of stress, it can be stopped. Do I even need to explain that massive potential for abuse under the law? Because to be frank, dealing with people who don't understand the law and history behind why speech is protected causes me stress.

And again, true threats are an actual doctrine under the law, and they are narrowly drawn.

White nationalists are not promoting a far flung future, they are promoting specific ethnic cleansing to be implemented now, as they stress the urgency of needing to act now because tomorrow will be too late.

First of all, everything they say is usually couched as a "when we get into power" statement, which they've been saying for decades with zero results.

Have you not actually listened to what they have been saying here? They are claiming this is an ethnic emergency and people must act now, some are promoting by any means possible, thus why we have had so many violently start murdering people already due to this rhetoric. They are calling for them to act now and in force, not later.

If you have any specific instances of calls for imminent lawless action, you have a case. If not, you do not. There is no Nazi exception to the first amendment.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution, it is in the declaration of independence, I never said it was. The governments obligation to defend US citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic is in the constitutions as well as be responsible for the the general welfare of the people. If the government fails to protect it's citizens from white nationalists, they are failing in both regards.

And the USA has protected its citizens from white nationalists. It just hasn't protected them from their speech, because speech is not actionable in this case.

Anyways, I think I've said everything I need to say, so I'll let you have the last word on this.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Verbal assault is a thing you know..
https://answers.uslegal.com/criminal/assault/23815/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-can-i-sue-for-verbal-assault-41907

Which, as your link points out, deals with a threat of harm. So again, racist speech is one again not inherently unprotected.

Yes feelings do matter and if you cause another emotional distress, you very well could be liable for any health issues they have as a result of it.

IIED and NIED are torts that are almost impossible to win and the conduct on the defendant's part has to be exceptionally egregious. At most, these are civil wrongs.

. People are not entitled to go around threatening people and we have an abundant and long history of court ordered restraining orders issued to address that very subject

Again, you are confusing threats with hate speech.

The threats made by the white nationalist platform should be treated no different than all of these other threats made that cause people harm.

They are treated no different. If they call for imminent lawless action, they are illegal. If they don't, they aren't. It's the same across the board.

BTW causing people emotional distress does actually harm them physically, it is time the courts catch up with the science btw, they are out of date:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/stress-immune.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/09/22/349875448/best-to-not-sweat-the-small-stuff-because-it-could-kill-you

Yes, emotional distress can kill you.

As I said above, NIED and IIED are torts you could sue for.

The idea that tormenting others doesn't harm them is factually incorrect. Causing others stress by threatening them can actually cause more physical harm than just punching them in the first place.

So your argument seems to be that if speech causes a large deal of stress, it can be stopped. Do I even need to explain that massive potential for abuse under the law? Because to be frank, dealing with people who don't understand the law and history behind why speech is protected causes me stress.

And again, true threats are an actual doctrine under the law, and they are narrowly drawn.

White nationalists are not promoting a far flung future, they are promoting specific ethnic cleansing to be implemented now, as they stress the urgency of needing to act now because tomorrow will be too late.

First of all, everything they say is usually couched as a "when we get into power" statement, which they've been saying for decades with zero results.

Have you not actually listened to what they have been saying here? They are claiming this is an ethnic emergency and people must act now, some are promoting by any means possible, thus why we have had so many violently start murdering people already due to this rhetoric. They are calling for them to act now and in force, not later.

If you have any specific instances of calls for imminent lawless action, you have a case. If not, you do not. There is no Nazi exception to the first amendment.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution, it is in the declaration of independence, I never said it was. The governments obligation to defend US citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic is in the constitutions as well as be responsible for the the general welfare of the people. If the government fails to protect it's citizens from white nationalists, they are failing in both regards.

And the USA has protected its citizens from white nationalists. It just hasn't protected them from their speech, because speech is not actionable in this case.

Anyways, I think I've said everything I need to say, so I'll let you have the last word on this.

White nationalists are promoting immediate threat of harm and do deliver. we have a ton of evidence to show that they do in fact inflict harm. How many attacks have we had lately? No the US has indeed failed at protecting it's citizens from white nationalists and is still not protecting it's citizens from white nationalists. That is why we are calling for actual enforcement. When we have had numerous actual attacks in addition to the threats of violence, it ceases to be some " distant" thing and instead an immediate danger.

https://gizmodo.com/hundreds-of-current-and-former-law-enforcement-officers-1835545223
This is a proven failure to protect at this point when the police themselves are part of the groups that the people need protected from.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/world/white-extremist-terrorism-christchurch.html

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...it is not like whatever administration is in office will get to define hate speech laws on a whim...

So, what branch is the DoJ part of, what are the responsibilities of the DoJ, what are the privileges of the DoJ, and who appoints the DoJ?

Bonus points if you can tell me why the DoJ was founded, and what civil liberty enumerated in the Constitution itself, as opposed to the Bill of Rights, was suspended for the execution of that end.

https://gizmodo.com/hundreds-of-current-and-former-law-enforcement-officers-1835545223
This is a proven failure to protect at this point when the police themselves are part of the groups that the people need protected from.

The people you'd have charged with enforcing hate speech laws, but not using hate speech laws as an excuse to persecute criticism of the government and suppress dissent, everyone!

 

[Marik2]

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Don't worry, I'll almost certainly be here. I know it's not much of a consolation.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

EDIT: Though you know it is odd that you think the government can be trusted with Nuclear reactors and waste but not with properly implementing and enforcing ethnostate promotion regulations. I would think arresting Nazis is a much simpler task.

I don't think the government can be trusted with either of those things. Just look up the Hanford site.

 

[Red Sentinel]

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Why? It's not even his election. He's not even American.

 

[Jarrito3002]

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Why? It's not even his election. He's not even American.

Yeah that was funny Lunatic and what his face Zontar were from other countries yet really interested in making sure the Republicans took office and hand waving the far right and alt right activities and screaming "matifa" at everything.

 

[DarthCoercis]

Yeah that was funny Lunatic and what his face Zontar were from other countries yet really interested in making sure the Republicans took office and hand waving the far right and alt right activities and screaming "matifa" at everything.

There are far-right and alt-right people here in Australia who talk about democrats being evil commie socialists and republicans being the heroic leaders that will lead us all to glory. That neither are things that exist here does not seem to dawn on them (well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

I've seen Australian far-right groups post parts of the US's pledge of allegiance with just a couple of words changed as though it actually applies to or represents us, which is beyond moronic.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah that was funny Lunatic and what his face Zontar were from other countries yet really interested in making sure the Republicans took office and hand waving the far right and alt right activities and screaming "matifa" at everything.

There are far-right and alt-right people here in Australia who talk about democrats being evil commie socialists and republicans being the heroic leaders that will lead us all to glory. That neither are things that exist here does not seem to dawn on them (well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

I've seen Australian far-right groups post parts of the US's pledge of allegiance with just a couple of words changed as though it actually applies to or represents us, which is beyond moronic.

Maurice Newmann just had a piece printed stating that he thought QLD was going to become Venezuela in the near future.

I've not really been impressed by Palaszczuck, she just needs good competition and she'll lose her job. But thinking it will turn into Venezuela is just ridiculous

 

[Thaluikhain]

(well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

Not the Commonwealth, just from the Queen of Australia (and her other realms and territories) being the head of state. We can stay in the Commonwealth as long as we recognise her as the head of that. Tonga, for example, has it's own royal family (their king once had to drive off libertarians from an island they'd created, which sounds much more epic than it was), but is still a member of the Commonwealth.

I've seen Australian far-right groups post parts of the US's pledge of allegiance with just a couple of words changed as though it actually applies to or represents us, which is beyond moronic.

Eh, seen that sort of thing on both sides of politics, people copy and paste stuff from the US without checking if things are the same in the place where they live. C'mon. Especially if you are a far-right group that hates foreigners.

 

[Jarrito3002]

Yeah that was funny Lunatic and what his face Zontar were from other countries yet really interested in making sure the Republicans took office and hand waving the far right and alt right activities and screaming "matifa" at everything.

There are far-right and alt-right people here in Australia who talk about democrats being evil commie socialists and republicans being the heroic leaders that will lead us all to glory. That neither are things that exist here does not seem to dawn on them (well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

I've seen Australian far-right groups post parts of the US's pledge of allegiance with just a couple of words changed as though it actually applies to or represents us, which is beyond moronic.

Moronic is not a strong enough word. Like your own country does not have the problems you wish it had in your head to you adopt fake fight of another country. At this point I think these people are really just bored on top of just being dipshits mad that people of color, gays, women, and mimes or whatever group they don't like have the audacity to speak.

 

[DarthCoercis]

(well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

Not the Commonwealth, just from the Queen of Australia (and her other realms and territories) being the head of state. We can stay in the Commonwealth as long as we recognise her as the head of that. Tonga, for example, has it's own royal family (their king once had to drive off libertarians from an island they'd created, which sounds much more epic than it was), but is still a member of the Commonwealth.

You're right. My apologies, I did not quite understand the difference. I'd thought that ditching the Queen as our head of state was hand-in-hand with leaving the commonwealth.

Moronic is not a strong enough word. Like your own country does not have the problems you wish it had in your head to you adopt fake fight of another country. At this point I think these people are really just bored on top of just being dipshits made that people of color, gays, women, and mimes or whatever group they don't have the audacity to speak.

Indeed. We have enough of our own issues, so importing fake ones from overseas makes less than no sense. People that're full of hate will adopt anything that gives them permission to be hateful, it seems.

 

[Trunkage]

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Don't worry, I'll almost certainly be here. I know it's not much of a consolation.

Your willing to listen even if you have a different point of view. That's always welcome.

Not as entertaining as others for sure but I don't want my life feeling like a telenovela thats just arguing and gets nowhere

 

[Marik2]

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Don't worry, I'll almost certainly be here. I know it's not much of a consolation.

Your willing to listen even if you have a different point of view. That's always welcome.

Not as entertaining as others for sure but I don't want my life feeling like a telenovela thats just arguing and gets nowhere

The escapist/the internet in general is one big telenovela.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Don't worry, I'll almost certainly be here. I know it's not much of a consolation.

Your willing to listen even if you have a different point of view. That's always welcome.

Not as entertaining as others for sure but I don't want my life feeling like a telenovela thats just arguing and gets nowhere

I've always liked a chance to get other points of view. I feel that it helps me better understand those I'm disagreeing with, and to better articulate my own case to them on their terms.

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Don't worry, I'll almost certainly be here. I know it's not much of a consolation.

Your willing to listen even if you have a different point of view. That's always welcome.

Not as entertaining as others for sure but I don't want my life feeling like a telenovela thats just arguing and gets nowhere

The escapist/the internet in general is one big telenovela.

That gives me the perfect chance to practice my Spanish. God help us all.