Charlottesville: It's about the 1st Amendment

[sun rise]

There is no free speech right to "cry fire in a crowded theater". Every right enumerated in the Constitution has a limit. There are cases where other principles and rights win over the First Amendment. There are endless cases about religious rights and other rights, for example.

And when there are those who want to murder me because I'm a Democrat and attack me for my Jewish background, they should expect pushback and not start whining like spoiled brats when it happens.

 

[leibowde84]

I didn't say the government imposed infringement. I said the media is largely ignoring the 1st and the left is largely ignoring or trampling on the 1st. I would say that the local government did a poor job of planning to defend the 1st in this situation.

The counter protesters had just as much right to ridicule the white supremacists though. And certainly the media has the right to as well. So, what's the problem?

 

[Tumah]

I mind a lot.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Tumah said: "Dead people don't care about Liberty".

 

[leibowde84]

I mind a lot.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The media isn't saying that they didn't have a 1st amendment right to protest. They are saying that the President has a responsibility to condemn their inciting of violence.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It is my opinion that the biggest threat in this situation is the threat to our freedoms. I'm happy to debate that with you, but stow the ad hominems.

That's not what ad hominem means.

 

[icehorse]

I think you've been listening to too much right-wing propaganda. Icehorse.
Whom do the left threaten? The left is a bunch of pusillanimous pussyfooters. We're too nice; too respectful, too tolerant and too hesitant to criticize or put our foot down.

If anyone, it's the right who seem to have implementing a police-surveillance state. It's the right who've transformed our democracy into an oligarchy. It's the right actively undermining our elections. It's the right who would do away with the 1st amendment.

The media? The media are supposed to be the forth estate, they're supposed to shine a light on the machinations of government and industry and keep everyone honest. They're there to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
But, aside from a handful of investigative journalists -- whose articles rarely find their way into the mainstream American media -- the media are little more than corporate lapdogs. The thousands of independent papers, radio and TV outlets we used to have have been gobbled up by a handful of corporate conglomerates. They're not going to criticize the industries and interests of the conglomerates they work for. They pretty much toe the line and repeat the corporate talking points du jour.

Let's not conflate the GOP with the alt-right. I agree that the GOP - oligarchy is a huge problem, but in this thread we're talking about the alt-right (nazis, supremacists...)

So as an aside, yes, I'm very concerned about the oligarchy and I agree with your conclusions.

As for the media, you start by saying I'm listening to propaganda and then you conclude with a harsh critique of the media. I'm not connecting those dots?

As I said earlier, I'm also concerned about the MSM, I agree that they are the corporate lapdogs you say they are.

Many in "The Left" - in this case, and in many other recent cases - seem to be headed down the path of stifling opinions they don't like. We have to take the high road. We have to defend the Nazis right to speak. We should ridicule them, and marginalize them, and malign them and so on, and we should do that persistently. AND, we have to defend their right to go to a public square and spew their hate. Many of the counter-protestors in Charlottesville failed on this count.

 

[icehorse]

The media isn't saying that they didn't have a 1st amendment right to protest. They are saying that the President has a responsibility to condemn their inciting of violence.

The media that I've seen has been largely silent on the 1st amendment, and this was a HUGE test of the 1st amendment, and we failed the test.

 

[suncowiam]

It is my opinion that the biggest threat in this situation is the threat to our freedoms. I'm happy to debate that with you, but stow the ad hominems.

Well if you state as an opinion then there's not much to debate about your opinion which I can accept as an opinion. This just revolves around your values. I don't agree with it nor do I accept it as a fact.

I see both sides as equally bad between the far left and the far right. One side is wrong for being hateful and another is wrong for working outside the laws.

The media is an extra point that is a bit off topic, IMO. There's false media from all sides. Not sure why you label that as being left.

 

[icehorse]

That's not what ad hominem means.

I disagree. You can attack the ideas, but to attack the thought process is an ad hominem.

 

[icehorse]

Well if you state as an opinion then there's not much to debate about your opinion which I can accept as an opinion. This just revolves around your values. I don't agree with it nor do I accept it as a fact.

I see both sides as equally bad between the far left and the far right. One side is wrong for being hateful and another is wrong for working outside the laws.

The media is an extra point that is a bit off topic, IMO. There's false media from all sides. Not sure why you label that as being left.

What? Of course it's my opinion. That's the nature of forums such as RF. I didn't label the media as being left. I accused BOTH the media and the left of threatening the 1st amendment.

Yes, I place an extremely high value on our freedoms. I'd be interested in hearing how your values differ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree. You can attack the ideas, but to attack the thought process is an ad hominem.

Nope, only attacking the character. Pointing out flaws in the process is just a rebuttal. Ironically, saying 'ad hominem' is referring to a problem in the process, as are all logical fallacies.

Calling an argument jumping to conclusions or generalization does not meet the definition of an ad hominem.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't realize the 1st amendment protected the right to run over other people with a car.

HUGE, EGREGIOUS STRAWMAN !!!!

 

[icehorse]

See, this is a straw man. No one is denying the fact that the white supremacists had a right to protest. But, every time they do, it is our responsibility to challenge and ridicule them. They were using intimidation tactics and inciting violence. Both of which should not be left unchallenged.

If the counter-protesters started the violence (which all evidence points to them not having done so), it would be different. But, the white supremacists brought semi-automatic rifles, fatigues, and used language that would knowingly incite violence.

The media is doing a fantastic job holding our President accountable for every word he says. It isn't hard for him to just say ... "violence on all sides is horrible, but one side was committing violence based on racism and racists are despicable, evil, unamerican idiots who are disgusting and unwelcome in our country. Legally they are allowed to stay, but they are not welcome."

And I feel you're strawmanning me here I've seen a LOT of footage in which the counter-protestors initiated localized violence. Make no mistake, the alt-right put reasonable people to a severe test. But sadly, some of us failed that test.

 

[icehorse]

And this right here is why America still has such a horrendous problem with racism 50 years after the Civil Rights Movement. You normalise it, you give it voice in mainstream society and you treat it as legitimate. You allow its proponents access to the corridors of power all the way up to the White House. It's the same reason why other anti-intellectual beliefs like geocentricism and Flat-Earth proponents are experiencing a resurgence. You hold opposing positions as having the same value regardless of their actual veracity and truth-value.

Sorry, you're strawmanning me here. I'm doing none of these things. "We" were put to an extremely hard test, and we failed.

I'm not suggesting accepting or normalizing any of this horrible hate-filled crap. We must oppose it. But we CANNOT trample on free speech as we go.

 

[suncowiam]

What? Of course it's my opinion. That's the nature of forums such as RF. I didn't label the media as being left. I accused BOTH the media and the left of threatening the 1st amendment.

Yes, I place an extremely high value on our freedoms. I'd be interested in hearing how your values differ?

Of course I place a high value on freedoms. I also place a high value fighting against hate groups. Especially those that want to restrict freedom from others not aligned to them simply by race, sex, religion and so on.

That is what these hate groups want? Is it not?

 

[icehorse]

The 1st amendment doesn't protect White Supremacists from the media. How was their 1st Amendment rights violated by governmental infringement?

One of the costs of free speech is protecting the rights of even people with horrible ideas to speak. Everyone knew this was going to be an extremely challenging situation and the local authorities failed to provide the asshats with the protections they are guaranteed.

 

[icehorse]

How did the first amendment keep Heather Heyer safe?

I absolutely support the 1st amendment and support the right of even the KKK and Nazis to speak and have demonstrations. But in this case, you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. The first amendment does not protect vehicular homicide.

When did I mention that incident?

 

[icehorse]

I just want to zero in on this paragraph; particularly the bit I've highlighted.

Do you honestly think normalising neo-Nazis and white supremacists - people who call for the death and/or subjugation of everyone who doesn't look or think like them - and their horrendous views will keep blacks, Jews, Muslims, LGBTs, Mexicans and First Nations people safe?

Who are you trying to convince here? Us or yourself?

You're still strawmanning here. I don't think we should normalize this crap, of course not.

But guess what, if we trample on the Neo-Nazis rights to be vile, we are - in the long run - making all of the groups you listed, less safe.

 

[icehorse]

Of course I place a high value on freedoms. I also place a high value fighting against hate groups. Especially those that want to restrict freedom from others not aligned to them simply by race, sex, religion and so on.

That is what these hate groups want? Is it not?

Of course I agree we need to fight these hate groups. But one weapon we CANNOT use, is to stifle their speech.

 

[David1967]

I didn't realize the 1st amendment protected the right to run over other people with a car.

Your right, it doesn't. And it also doesn't protect the right to riot and destroy property as we have seen time and again.