Charlottesville: It's about the 1st Amendment

[icehorse]

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.

I watched a LOT of videos. (I should have taken better notes, my bad.) As I recall, coverage from "vice" and from TheRebel showed footage of counter-protestors initiating violence. Were they goaded, sure!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

There are more terrorist attacks by white nationalists on American soil than any other group. I'd say they are a sufficiently big threat.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Not true. If the first bottle thrown was from a white supremacist, then the violence was on them. Individual incidents don't matter when talking about the event as a whole.

Once that first bottle was thrown, the protest ceased to be legal.

 

[icehorse]

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.

The situation was spread out over both time and space. There was no single point of contact. There were many points of contact in different locations and different times.

 

[leibowde84]

I watched a LOT of videos. (I should have taken better notes, my bad.) As I recall, coverage from "vice" and from TheRebel showed footage of counter-protestors initiating violence. Were they goaded, sure!

The only question is who threw the first bottle. Individual incidents are not relevant.

Once that first bottle was thrown, the white nationalist protest ceased to be legal. Thus, there was no 1st amendment issue.

 

[leibowde84]

The situation was spread out over both time and space. There was no single point of contact. There were many points of contact in different locations and different times.

Again, once that first bottle was thrown, the white nationalist protest ceased to be legal. Thus, there was no 1st amendment issue.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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

@ADigitalArtist is right. Ad hominem is to debate the person rather than the argument. For example if I said your argument is invalid because you wear a tutu, that is an ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attempt to undermine the actual debate by discrediting the debater.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

If a white nationalist was the first to throw a bottle in Charlottesville, then their protest was no longer legal at that point. After that, the counter-protesters were merely defending themselves from a violent protest.

 

[icehorse]

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.
.

Is it your contention that the alt-right's freedoms were protected in this case? Because I don't think so.

(BTW, I've read the amendment many times, and as I'm sure you know, there are reams of law concerning its interpretation. So unless you count yourself as a legal expert on this tricky topic, please dispense with the insults and actually read the thread.)

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Truthfully, the *biggest* threat to our freedoms is a populace that is ill-educated. That is what allows politicians to lie and get away with it. That is what allows corporations to control the government. That is what reduces our ability to compete on the world stage. That is why claims of 'voter fraud' can be made with no evidence whatsoever. That is why science denialism can continue. And that is why the alt-right is such a huge problem. By turning any news story they don't like into 'fake news', they have significantly reduced the power of the press both to investigate and reveal the actual tactics of those in power.

The difference between the alt-right and the bigots that were marching is minor. Both thrive on dismissing the truth and embracing hatred and an anarchic view towards government.

Yes, the bigots and idiots had a right to march and have their positions declared. They do NOT have a right to be unchallenged. They do NOT have a right to intimidate. And they most certainly do NOT have the right to encourage violence.

 

[icehorse]

@ADigitalArtist is right. Ad hominem is to debate the person rather than the argument. For example if I said your argument is invalid because you wear a tutu, that is an ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attempt to undermine the actual debate by discrediting the debater.

This all seems like a tangent, and maybe an interesting debate. For now I'm happy to retract that claim since it's off topic.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

This all seems like a tangent, and maybe an interesting debate. For now I'm happy to retract that claim since it's off topic.

It is not a "tangent" or an "interesting debate", you are just simply wrong about what the phrase means. Just look it up.

 

[icehorse]

Truthfully, the *biggest* threat to our freedoms is a populace that is ill-educated. That is what allows politicians to lie and get away with it. That is what allows corporations to control the government. That is what reduces our ability to compete on the world stage. That is why claims of 'voter fraud' can be made with no evidence whatsoever. That is why science denialism can continue. And that is why the alt-right is such a huge problem. By turning any news story they don't like into 'fake news', they have significantly reduced the power of the press both to investigate and reveal the actual tactics of those in power.

I could not agree with you more!!! Hooray!!

Yes, the bigots and idiots had a right to march and have their positions declared. They do NOT have a right to be unchallenged. They do NOT have a right to intimidate. And they most certainly do NOT have the right to encourage violence.

This is where the legal boundaries and definitions get really tricky. The phrase I've heard used to determine the limits of a given instance is "imminent violence". I think the alt-right are well versed in this idea and that they know how to step right up to the legal limit without crossing the legal line.

Of course we have the right to counter-protest. But we don't have the right to stifle protected speech.

 

[icehorse]

It is not a "tangent" or an "interesting debate", you are just simply wrong about what the phrase means. Just look it up.

Start another thread and I'll debate you there. On this thread we'll have to agree to disagree. BTW, I retracted the claim, can't you take "yes" for an answer?

 

[Polymath257]

Is it your contention that the alt-right's freedoms were protected in this case? Because I don't think so.

(BTW, I've read the amendment many times, and as I'm sure you know, there are reams of law concerning its interpretation. So unless you count yourself as a legal expert on this tricky topic, please dispense with the insults and actually read the thread.)

Yes, their freedoms were protected. They got to march at the university carrying torches. They got to go through the streets yelling that 'Jews will not replace us'. They got to have their protest, even though they were carrying assault rifles and spewing hate. No government stepped in to stop them.

But the counter-protesters *also* had the right to challenge them. They also had the right to express their views forcefully. And they *also* had the right to be safe from hate-filled idiots driving cars into crowds.

This is an example of domestic terrorism. Pure and Simple. And there has been a history of such terrorism from the far right in this country for decades. In most ways, it is a far larger threat to us than Islamic terrorism because it is home grown.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Start another thread and I'll debate you there. On this thread we'll have to agree to disagree. BTW, I retracted the claim, can't you take "yes" for an answer?

Actually I don't have to agree to disagree. I don't know why people say that, as I don't have to agree to disagree. You are just flat out wrong, that is my position, and I am not agreeing to disagree on it.

 

[Polymath257]

I could not agree with you more!!! Hooray!!

This is where the legal boundaries and definitions get really tricky. The phrase I've heard used to determine the limits of a given instance is "imminent violence". I think the alt-right are well versed in this idea and that they know how to step right up to the legal limit without crossing the legal line.

Carrying assault rifles seems like a good cry of fire in a crowded theater.

Of course we have the right to counter-protest. But we don't have the right to stifle protected speech.

Wrong. They most certainly do, as long as they don't use violence. Shouting over those you disagree with is a longstanding method of counter speech.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yes, their freedoms were protected. They got to march at the university carrying torches. They got to go through the streets yelling that 'Jews will not replace us'. They got to have their protest, even though they were carrying assault rifles and spewing hate. No government stepped in to stop them.

But the counter-protesters *also* had the right to challenge them. They also had the right to express their views forcefully. And they *also* had the right to be safe from hate-filled idiots driving cars into crowds.

This is an example of domestic terrorism. Pure and Simple. And there has been a history of such terrorism from the far right in this country for decades. In most ways, it is a far larger threat to us than Islamic terrorism because it is home grown.

"carrying torches."

Tiki torches, to be exact, which comes from the Tiki culture, a bit odd for white supremacists. But the funny thing is the Tiki torch company had no problems clearly stating they do not support white nationalism in a more responsive manner than the President of the Untied States.

Tiki torch company: We have nothing to do with white nationalism

 

[icehorse]

Yes, their freedoms were protected. They got to march at the university carrying torches. They got to go through the streets yelling that 'Jews will not replace us'. They got to have their protest, even though they were carrying assault rifles and spewing hate. No government stepped in to stop them.

But the counter-protesters *also* had the right to challenge them. They also had the right to express their views forcefully. And they *also* had the right to be safe from hate-filled idiots driving cars into crowds.

This is an example of domestic terrorism. Pure and Simple. And there has been a history of such terrorism from the far right in this country for decades. In most ways, it is a far larger threat to us than Islamic terrorism because it is home grown.

But the counter protestors ALSO initiated violence in some instances, AND the authorities did not maintain a space for the alt-right protesters to speak.

 

[icehorse]

Actually I don't have to agree to disagree. I don't know why people say that, as I don't have to agree to disagree. You are just flat out wrong, that is my position, and I am not agreeing to disagree on it.

of course.