Charlottesville: It's about the 1st Amendment

[icehorse]

He's asking if you recognize that there are limits to the blanket Civil Liberty granted by the Freedom of Speech.

He gave you an example that is usually policed by local sensibilities, using Hitler in a classroom full of children, IIRC.

If you're correct, then that question has been asked and answered several times already on this thread. But thanks for the translation.

 

[icehorse]

Think of it this way:
There has, at least as far as modern history is concerned, always been more on the Right, Republicans, Conservatives in America than those on the Left, Democrat, Liberal (with those who are at least self-identified as moderate being the most numerous). Now, based on this, given there are more on the Right than the Left, that the population is skewed/tilted in one direction, which is probably going to be producing more extremists, regressives, and other nasty sorts? And if not more, the numbers shouldn't be all that different.

I think we need a Venn diagram here

Seriously, we're talking about sets and subsets and so on. And along those lines, isn't it the case that registered Dems far outnumber registered GOPers?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think we need a Venn diagram here

Seriously, we're talking about sets and subsets and so on. And along those lines, isn't it the case that registered Dems far outnumber registered GOPers?

It borders on the same issues of looking for violent atheists. There aren't many atheists to begin with, so the goal of finding violent and dogmatic ones already faces a much greater challenge than setting out to do the same with Christians and Muslims. By default, Left extremist groups sometimes have a policy of not harming any sentient being, Right extremists time and time again show that killing is not a problem for them. And when we take a step up from the extremists, we suddenly fight RFRA bills and other rights that are being trashed and thrown out the window in the name of the Religious Right. The Left doesn't have much to compare with this. There is Affirmative Action, but it's falling out of favor and place (even within the Left), and that still doesn't go as far as denying someone the ability to visit a dying loved one in the hospital.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Hard claims to prove,

Not really that hard to prove: people are tripping over themselves to draw comparisons between murderous Neo-Nazis and the people who volunteer to place themselves between them and those they target.

Spoiler: "But those hard left Antifa thugs are hateful too!"

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=484046581960598

That video right there says it all. Wait for that statement the woman makes. As if you need more proof that these degenerates are a danger to everyone else; you can bet those poor children are going to be brought up on the same diet of hate, ignorance & xenophobia their inbred hill billy parents have been dining on for gods knows how long.

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

How magnanimous of you to decide to take that risk on behalf of all the people Neo-Nazis want to get rid of.

 

[icehorse]

How magnanimous of you to decide to take that risk on behalf of all the people Neo-Nazis want to get rid of.

I think no one is safe if you trade in free speech. My motivation - as always - is universal human rights.

 

[icehorse]

It borders on the same issues of looking for violent atheists. There aren't many atheists to begin with, so the goal of finding violent and dogmatic ones already faces a much greater challenge than setting out to do the same with Christians and Muslims. By default, Left extremist groups sometimes have a policy of not harming any sentient being, Right extremists time and time again show that killing is not a problem for them. And when we take a step up from the extremists, we suddenly fight RFRA bills and other rights that are being trashed and thrown out the window in the name of the Religious Right. The Left doesn't have much to compare with this. There is Affirmative Action, but it's falling out of favor and place (even within the Left), and that still doesn't go as far as denying someone the ability to visit a dying loved one in the hospital.

would you be willing to create a few temporary labels and describe the characteristics you're thinking of?

for example:

"Extreme feminists": focus on micro-aggressions, fighting the patriarchy, pro-multiculturalism and so on

This is an arbitrary label, but it represents a block of people...

 

[Yerda]

But the left and the media are the bigger threat!!!!!!.

Oddly enough, I read the other day that the ACLU had been in court defending the right to protest at Charlottesville and have consistently and visibly defended free speech for far right groups and individuals.

It does seem to me that a lot of the left have an issue with free speech, though, and I find this confusing as a tribal lefty who grew up with free speech as a lefty cause.

 

[ChristineM]

THIS thread is about how free speech was trampled this weekend. Of course if we're looking at the broader event, the murderer is a crucial piece of the puzzle. But from the perspective of free speech issues, the murderer was not involved.

I disagree, if the demonstrators were responsible for their actions (speech), i.e. if incitement to racism, riot,violence, hatred were a punishable offence then less or none would have been present to incite whatever.

Fields would not have had a crowd to drive into.

 

[Falvlun]

Wrong. If instead, the people with bullhorns wanted to have a protest across the street and not use bullhorns, I would totally support that. It's not an either / or, it's a both. What I'm arguing is that stifling is not allowed. Of course protests are allowed.

Part of protesting is performing your protest in front of the people you are protesting.

You are still making a determination that certain speech is not welcome at a particular place.

You say that "stifling is not allowed". According to who? Should not citizens be able to exercise their right to shout over speech they disagree with?

I agree that the government shouldn't be censoring people. That is against the 1st Ammendment. But I do not agree with your interpretation that this means we, as citizens, must tolerate, politely, all speech and stifle our own so that others can be preferentially heard.

 

[icehorse]

I disagree, if the demonstrators were responsible for their actions (speech), i.e. if incitement to racism, riot,violence, hatred were a punishable offence then less or none would have been present to incite whatever.

Fields would not have had a crowd to drive into.

Your idea feels very Orwellian to me. I'm going to side with Ben on this one:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

 

[icehorse]

Part of protesting is performing your protest in front of the people you are protesting.

You are still making a determination that certain speech is not welcome at a particular place.

You say that "stifling is not allowed". According to who? Should not citizens be able to exercise their right to shout over speech they disagree with?

I agree that the government shouldn't be censoring people. That is against the 1st Ammendment. But I do not agree with your interpretation that this means we, as citizens, must tolerate, politely, all speech and stifle our own so that others can be preferentially heard.

This means that one citizen can keep another citizen from hearing what they want to hear. Sounds Orwellian to me.

 

[Falvlun]

This means that one citizen can keep another citizen from hearing what they want to hear. Sounds Orwellian to me.

As opposed to your preferred method which would limit the speech of counter-protestors?

Have you given some thought about who is supposed to enforce that, by the way?

Do you think that the government should be preventing counter protestors from shouting over the speech of another group of people?

Or do you just think that we should be self-policing?

 

[icehorse]

As opposed to your preferred method which would limit the speech of counter-protestors?

Have you given some thought about who is supposed to enforce that, by the way?

Do you think that the government should be preventing counter protestors from shouting over the speech of another group of people?

Or do you just think that we should be self-policing?

I've never advocated for limiting anyone's speech. The counter protestors are welcome to go across the street.

 

[shmogie]

I think you've broadened the playing field a bit. When I woke this morning I thought that I also wanted to broaden the field a bit. But it feels a bit late in this thread to do so. So, hypothetically, I'm thinking of framing this question in terms of universal human rights, which include freedom of expression.

First, incitement has a high threshold, and it must be specifically targeted. Second, in America, saying something that hurts someones feelings is not barred, in fact, it is part of the rich heritage of the first amendment, Third, defamation must first be proveably untrue, and it must refer specifically to a situation or act. Calling someone a weiner, or even much worse is not defamation, it is an opinion.

 

[shmogie]

It borders on the same issues of looking for violent atheists. There aren't many atheists to begin with, so the goal of finding violent and dogmatic ones already faces a much greater challenge than setting out to do the same with Christians and Muslims. By default, Left extremist groups sometimes have a policy of not harming any sentient being, Right extremists time and time again show that killing is not a problem for them. And when we take a step up from the extremists, we suddenly fight RFRA bills and other rights that are being trashed and thrown out the window in the name of the Religious Right. The Left doesn't have much to compare with this. There is Affirmative Action, but it's falling out of favor and place (even within the Left), and that still doesn't go as far as denying someone the ability to visit a dying loved one in the hospital.

The left, historically, can be just as violent as the right. With moslems now being the children of the left, the score is much higher. Anarchists ( always left wing ) were blowing up people a hundred years ago. Unions, always left wing, were blowing up people 75 years ago. The weathermen, students for a democratic society, viet nam veterans against the war, all left wing groups, were blowing up people less than 50 years ago. Today we have blm, antifa, and left wing politicians calling for violence against the police, and those they generally dont agree with. Lets never forget that modern left wing politics began with stalin and lenin. The first lead a sadistic and brutal murderous revolution, The second forged the idea that mass killings were acceptable if they were for ¨ the good of the people ¨ Today, the lefty mantra is ¨ the end justifies the means ¨. That is how they are perfectly comfortable with literally butchering millions of unborn babies, or going out into the street with masks and burning down buildings, because someone might give a speech they dont agree with.

 

[Falvlun]

I've never advocated for limiting anyone's speech. The counter protestors are welcome to go across the street.

And the neo-Nazi's are free to speak in the privacy of their homes or in the middle of nowhere, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't appreciate forcing them to move. You are limiting the right of counter protestors to speak when you limit the places you believe they should be allowed to speak.

And you didn't answer my question: who do you want enforcing this?

 

[Mister Silver]

Put in a more logical reference:
Would you want a serial killer addressing your children in a classroom in reference to killing?
It is no different with someone else addressing an audience with a hateful ideology.

 

[icehorse]

And the neo-Nazi's are free to speak in the privacy of their homes or in the middle of nowhere, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't appreciate forcing them to move. You are limiting the right of counter protestors to speak when you limit the places you believe they should be allowed to speak.

And you didn't answer my question: who do you want enforcing this?

I'm suggesting that no one gets to talk over anyone to stifle their speech. Unless both parties want to participate in a shouting match

You keep suggesting favoritism on my part, and i'm not suggesting any favoritism

 

[Falvlun]

@icehorse

You seem to just be decrying how protests work. A protest is pretty much always a group of people chanting about their side and another anti-group chanting about the opposite side.

This isn't the death-knell of freedom of speech. It's literally what a protest is.

The neo-Nazis were given a government provided permit for their protest. The government fulfilled their first Ammendment obligations. The other side were given permits as well. That's how this should work; no favoritism, no censureship.

That it devolved into violence is the problem. That one side murdered a member on the other side is horrific.

But, if you take away the violence, then I fail to see how anyone's freedom of speech was curtailed.

 

[idav]

The left, historically, can be just as violent as the right. With moslems now being the children of the left, the score is much higher. Anarchists ( always left wing ) were blowing up people a hundred years ago. Unions, always left wing, were blowing up people 75 years ago. The weathermen, students for a democratic society, viet nam veterans against the war, all left wing groups, were blowing up people less than 50 years ago. Today we have blm, antifa, and left wing politicians calling for violence against the police, and those they generally dont agree with. Lets never forget that modern left wing politics began with stalin and lenin. The first lead a sadistic and brutal murderous revolution, The second forged the idea that mass killings were acceptable if they were for ¨ the good of the people ¨ Today, the lefty mantra is ¨ the end justifies the means ¨. That is how they are perfectly comfortable with literally butchering millions of unborn babies, or going out into the street with masks and burning down buildings, because someone might give a speech they dont agree with.

As amusing as these stereotyping and broad strokes are it's still fallacious. Same sort of arguments used because Stalin was atheist oh my, well that just proves Dems are of the debil!