Charlottesville: It's about the 1st Amendment

[icehorse]

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.

Great post. The limits of free speech are really complex. (BTW, the "crying fire" example is often used, but it's not a good example.)

As I've studied free speech the phrase that comes up repeatedly is "imminent violence". As I looked at videos from the weekend, I believe the alt-right asshats were careful to not cross that line. So vile as their messages were, I believe they were protected speech.

 

[suncowiam]

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

I agree with you. I suggested they are equally bad. So, I don't support the far right and the far left, equally.

 

[icehorse]

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?

Ridicule, absolutely. But many of the counter protestors initiated violence. That lowers us to their level and it tramples on the 1st. AND in general the MSM is ignoring that aspect.

 

[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.

Those are important aspects of the story, no doubt. But the 1st got trampled, and that inconvenient truth isn't getting the press it deserves.

 

[suncowiam]

Ridicule, absolutely. But many of the counter protestors initiated violence. That lowers us to their level and it tramples on the 1st. AND in general the MSM is ignoring that aspect.

How are you concluding where and how much of the violence was being initiated? I'm actually not sure, myself. But Antifa's MO would suggest it was initiated by Antifa, but can we conclude that here?

How do you know that none was initiated by the hate groups?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Can you explain how we failed the test? How should we have reacted?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

All evidence I've seen shows that the white supremacists initiated the violence. Can you provide evidence that the counter-protesters "threw the first stone", so to speak?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

But, the white supremacists initiated the violence. At least all evidence seems to suggest that. So, weren't the counter-protesters the ones who deserved protection.

All accounts seem to say that the white supremacists initiated the violence by attacking clergy. The counter-protesters simply protected them and stuck up for themselves. We can't expect them to stand down if white supremacists start throwing bottles at them, can we?

 

[leibowde84]

Ridicule, absolutely. But many of the counter protestors initiated violence. That lowers us to their level and it tramples on the 1st. AND in general the MSM is ignoring that aspect.

Can you provide evidence that the counter-protesters were the first to attack? All evidence seems to point to white supremacists initiating the violence by throwing bottles. After that, the counter-protesters have every right to fight back.

 

[leibowde84]

Those are important aspects of the story, no doubt. But the 1st got trampled, and that inconvenient truth isn't getting the press it deserves.

The 1st Amendment ONLY restricts the government from infringing on the right to express. It doesn't speak to protection from others. Seeing how the white supremacists initiated the violence, how can you expect the counter-protesters to just stand idly by?

No doubt, the police should have kept both groups separated. But, once the white supremacists initiated the violence, the counter protesters were free to fight back.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

That's why car control should be enacted.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And the biggest threats to our freedoms are the white nationalists, the Nazis and the current president.

 

[icehorse]

How are you concluding where and how much of the violence was being initiated? I'm actually not sure, myself. But Antifa's MO would suggest it was initiated by Antifa, but can we conclude that here?

How do you know that none was initiated by the hate groups?

Watching videos from "ground zero"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's why car control should be enacted.

We have it. Not only was that area supposed to be cordoned off (a few cars went through anyway), but they have testing in place with required updates, safety tests, paper trails with meticulous proof of ownership.
But I guess because someone committed a crime anyway we should just get rid of all that because 'car control doesn't work.'

 

[icehorse]

And the biggest threats to our freedoms are the white nationalists, the Nazis and the current president.

Hey! we have grounds for a debate! I'm not sure if I think trump or the "left pole" is a bigger threat, but I'd say they're both far bigger threats than the alt-right.

 

[icehorse]

The 1st Amendment ONLY restricts the government from infringing on the right to express. It doesn't speak to protection from others. Seeing how the white supremacists initiated the violence, how can you expect the counter-protesters to just stand idly by?

No doubt, the police should have kept both groups separated. But, once the white supremacists initiated the violence, the counter protesters were free to fight back.

Sadly it wasn't that clear cut. There were incidents of counter-protestors initiating violence. There was no single incident, there were many isolated incidents.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We have it. Not only was that area supposed to be cordoned off (a few cars went through anyway), but they have testing in place with required updates, safety tests, paper trails with meticulous proof of ownership.
But I guess because someone committed a crime anyway we should just get rid of all that because 'car control doesn't work.'

Remember McVeigh? No one can park any vehicles near any federal building.

Whenever there are organized protests and such I can see no car zones for the event in the future.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Good grief man,

at least read the amendment so you know what you're talking about. Here, I'll even bring it to you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
​

If this still mystifies you perhaps asking your teacher will help.

.

 

[suncowiam]

How are you concluding where and how much of the violence was being initiated? I'm actually not sure, myself. But Antifa's MO would suggest it was initiated by Antifa, but can we conclude that here?

How do you know that none was initiated by the hate groups?

And what's your opinion about the driver of that car that killed a protester?

 

[leibowde84]

Watching videos from "ground zero"

The only important question is whether a White Nationalist/Supremacist/Alt-right protester threw the first bottle or not. So, how would videos of individual incidents matter at all? Once the first bottle was thrown, every single counter-protester had the right to fight back. It works the other way too, but all evidence I've seen points to the protesters initiating the violence.