Charlottesville: It's about the 1st Amendment

[icehorse]

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.

"Shouting over" is one way to attempt to stifle speech. And actually, I'm not sure of its legality. But the counter protestors did more than just "shout over".

 

[Polymath257]

"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

Yes, the use of tiki torches is ironic. But the torchlight parade as a method of intimidation goes all the way back to Germany in the 1930s. A simple google search will give many examples. I assure you the marchers in Charlottesville were fully aware of the symbolism.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

The former is wrong also. The latter is unnecessary.

 

[Polymath257]

"Shouting over" is one way to attempt to stifle speech. And actually, I'm not sure of its legality. But the counter protestors did more than just "shout over".

Once there was a threat of violence (and the assault rifles alone constitute such a threat), the blame is on those making the threat first. That was clearly the Nazis.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"Shouting over" is one way to attempt to stifle speech. And actually, I'm not sure of its legality. But the counter protestors did more than just "shout over".

The first amendment says, "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.

Was Congress out there making laws? I didn't notice. Did anyone else catch that?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I can agree with that.
But government has a tough job in such circumstances.

 

[Skwim]

(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.)

"Insults"? Well, I guess if I obstinately held onto my misunderstanding of something and someone tried to help me out I could consider it an insult, but I don't do that. However, as I suggested, ASK.... YOUR.... TEACHER.... TO.... EXPLAIN.... IT.... TO.... YOU, because obviously it isn't getting through. Or, if you're too embarrassed to do that, try parsing* it.
You might start by looking at the first five words and consider how they relate to your complaint and keep them in mind as you read through the amendment.

"Congress shall make no law . . . ."


​

*parse [pahrs, pahrz]
verb (used with object), parsed, parsing.
3. to analyze (something, as a speech or behavior) to discover its implications or uncover a deeper meaning.

.

​

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Once there was a threat of violence (and the assault rifles alone constitute such a threat), the blame is on those making the threat first. That was clearly the Nazis.

I'll grant some culpability there, but I'd still stick to individual actions, giving
blame to persons for their choices. If a white supremacist has peaceful intent
(hard to imagine, eh), & doesn't engage in violence, I'd give'm a pass.
I grant the same leeway to BLM types too.

 

[suncowiam]

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

You didn't answer my question about what these hate groups want. Could you answer it as I would like to continue that topic?

 

[icehorse]

The former is wrong also. The latter is unnecessary.

"The former" I'm assuming is a response to my claim that the counter-protestors sometimes initiated violence? If so I can cite three instances (I could go dig up more, but I'm operating from good faith), from the videos I saw:

- Rebel reporter Faith Goldy being shoved by counter-protestors
- Rebel reporter Faith Goldy being verbally intimidated by counter-protestors
- Counter-protestors macing alt-righters as they walked peacefully from venue one to venue two.

Again, I'm not advocating for the alt-right.

"The latter" I'm assuming is a response to my claim that the government didn't provide a safe space for the hate speech? If so:

The government issued the horrible alt-right a permit to speak in that public park. Are you claiming that the police are not tasked with maintaining law and order during a permitted protest??

 

[Polymath257]

"Shouting over" is one way to attempt to stifle speech. And actually, I'm not sure of its legality. But the counter protestors did more than just "shout over".

In a rented venue, it can be illegal to disrupt. In a public area, it is not.

Also, the history of 'fighting words' and the first amendment is tricky. Were there such used here? on which side?

In practice, NO freedom is absolute. There is often a playoff between different freedoms and which wins in any particular case can be tricky (and often up to the courts).

 

[icehorse]

Once there was a threat of violence (and the assault rifles alone constitute such a threat), the blame is on those making the threat first. That was clearly the Nazis.

Virginia is an open carry state. It might be that carrying assault rifles is illegal, but they were not concealed, and if it were illegal I would have guessed that they'd have been arrested at the get-go.

Again, as far as threats go, the test seems to be "imminent violence", and I suspect the alt-right is better versed in that nuance than you are. Even though I hate them, I sense they ARE well prepared legally.

 

[Polymath257]

"The former" I'm assuming is a response to my claim that the counter-protestors sometimes initiated violence? If so I can cite three instances (I could go dig up more, but I'm operating from good faith), from the videos I saw:

- Rebel reporter Faith Goldy being shoved by counter-protestors
- Rebel reporter Faith Goldy being verbally intimidated by counter-protestors
- Counter-protestors macing alt-righters as they walked peacefully from venue one to venue two.

Again, I'm not advocating for the alt-right.

"The latter" I'm assuming is a response to my claim that the government didn't provide a safe space for the hate speech? If so:

The government issued the horrible alt-right a permit to speak in that public park. Are you claiming that the police are not tasked with maintaining law and order during a permitted protest??

Yes, they are. And that can include declaring the protest to be over. Which they did.

 

[icehorse]

In a rented venue, it can be illegal to disrupt. In a public area, it is not.

Also, the history of 'fighting words' and the first amendment is tricky. Were there such used here? on which side?

In practice, NO freedom is absolute. There is often a playoff between different freedoms and which wins in any particular case can be tricky (and often up to the courts).

Agreed it's tricky. Another point though is that freedom of speech includes freedom to listen. If counter-protestors shout over a speech I want to hear, then aren't they impinging on my constitutional rights?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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

No, I'm not and yes you are by demanding that free speech apply to those who wish to take it away from everyone else.

I'm not suggesting accepting or normalizing any of this horrible hate-filled crap.

By saying they deserve access to both mainstream channels of discourse and the space necessary to advertise their views, you actually are. Allowing neo-Nazis to spread their views in public without challenge (i.e. protecting their freedom of speech) gives people the impression that such views are tolerated at least and normal at best.

Case in point: Trump, arguably one of the more openly racist candidates in recent years, got into the Oval Office after repeatedly mocking minorities & vulnerable people during his bid for the Presidency.

We must oppose it. But we CANNOT trample on free speech as we go.

Sure we can - we're not the American government and the First Amendment only applies to governmental actions. There are already reasonable restrictions on speech as is - you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, for instance, because that can cause harm. So why not restrictions on groups calling for the deaths of minorities & vulnerable people?

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

By saying white supremacists have a right to free speech you're acting as if their views are reasonable enough to be allowed in public discourse. They are 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.

Because Neo-Nazis have the right to protest and talk about their views openly all the groups I listed are unsafe now. If you really cared about their safety you wouldn't want people who advocate killing, enslaving or exiling them walking around spouting their views. Seriously, why does Richard Spencer deserve the right to call for a 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' of minorities in public?

 

[icehorse]

"Insults"? Well, I guess if I obstinately held onto my misunderstanding of something and someone tried to help me out I could consider it an insult, but I don't do that. However, as I suggested, ASK.... YOUR.... TEACHER.... TO.... EXPLAIN.... IT.... TO.... YOU, because obviously it isn't getting through. Or, if you're too embarrassed to do that, try parsing* it.
You might start by looking at the first five words and consider how they relate to your complaint and keep them in mind as you read through the amendment.

"Congress shall make no law . . . ."
​

*parse [pahrs, pahrz]
verb (used with object), parsed, parsing.
3. to analyze (something, as a speech or behavior) to discover its implications or uncover a deeper meaning.
.​

I'm a programmer, I understand parsing quite well.

Are you claiming that the police have no responsibility to maintain law and order when a permitted protest is held in a public place?​

 

[icehorse]

By saying they deserve access to both mainstream channels of discourse and the space necessary to advertise their views, you actually are. Allowing neo-Nazis to spread their views in public without challenge (i.e. protecting their freedom of speech) gives people the impression that such views are tolerated at least and normal at best.

Don't underestimate these asshats. I suspect they know the laws quite well. They had a permit to protest. I never said they had a right to "mainstream channels of discourse", of course I agree that no one is guaranteed a platform.

I also said they couldn't be challenged, of course they can and should be challenged. But they cannot be legally stifled.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, they are. And that can include declaring the protest to be over. Which they did.

I wanted to hear what these asshats had to say. I wanted to know how to combat them. The counter-protestors infringed on my right to hear their views.

 

[icehorse]

Because Neo-Nazis have the right to protest and talk about their views openly all the groups I listed are unsafe now. If you really cared about their safety you wouldn't want people who advocate killing, enslaving or exiling them walking around spouting their views. Seriously, why does Richard Spencer deserve the right to call for a 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' of minorities in public?

Hard claims to prove, but even if you're correct, that's the price of free speech. It's a high price but it beats the alternative.

 

[Polymath257]

Agreed it's tricky. Another point though is that freedom of speech includes freedom to listen. If counter-protestors shout over a speech I want to hear, then aren't they impinging on my constitutional rights?

Not as usually interpreted, no.