Charlottesville: It's about the 1st Amendment

[Falvlun]

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

I understand you believe that, but I am pointing out the logical effect of your suggestion.

 

[ChristineM]

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

Fair enough.
I'm describing what is generally European law, freedom of speech is a human right, with that freedom of speech comes personal responsibility. That responsibility includes not inciting hatred, racism, sexism, or violence.

 

[Stanyon]

 

[icehorse]

Fair enough.
I'm describing what is generally European law, freedom of speech is a human right, with that freedom of speech comes personal responsibility. That responsibility includes not inciting hatred, racism, sexism, or violence.

To me the obvious concern becomes "who decides?, who gets to be the censor?" that's what feels Orwellian. Isn't it the case in Germany that it's against the law to be a holocaust denier? Well I think such a denier is reprehensible and at the same time I think it's an extremely dangerous law.

 

[icehorse]

@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.

So do you make a distinction between a protest and a talk or presentation?

 

[Mister Silver]

Well I think such a denier is reprehensible and at the same time I think it's an extremely dangerous law.

The Holocaust happened. It's a fact. How is it reprehensible or a dangerous law for making people of the past accountable for their horrible actions while ensuring people of the present do not attempt to subvert such a horrible action by denying its existence?

 

[ChristineM]

To me the obvious concern becomes "who decides?, who gets to be the censor?" that's what feels Orwellian. Isn't it the case in Germany that it's against the law to be a holocaust denier? Well I think such a denier is reprehensible and at the same time I think it's an extremely dangerous law.

No, it not dangerous, it simply requires personal responsibility not to be the one who incites violence or hatred.

And there lies the difference between the US and Europe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The left, historically, can be just as violent as the right.

There are violent ones, yes,

With moslems now being the children of the left, the score is much higher.

Children of the Left? According to whom? Have you ever seen some of my rants about Islam on this forum? Have you heard/read the things from people such as Sam Harris?

Today we have blm, antifa, and left wing politicians calling for violence against the police, and those they generally dont agree with.

I'm going to have to call this one. If you have no evidence, this point is null

Lets never forget that modern left wing politics began with stalin and lenin.

Actually, modern Leftism, like most modern political ideologies, are based on things that were around before Stalin and Lenin, with both of them being inspired by things that came before them.

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 ¨

It was actually Lenin who lead the Revolution, and, inherently, Revolutions are bloody. Lenin's Revolution was also as equally just as the American and French Revolutions, and they were very bloody affairs. The downfall of the Russian Revolution was largely because of Stalin, whose goals were power and control, not using the state as a vanguard of the proletariat.

Today, the lefty mantra is ¨ the end justifies the means ¨.

Is it? Myself, being a Leftist, do not hear such a thing very often, especially from more mainstream Left-wing sources.

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.

They aren't literally butchering unborn babies, you don't have much in ways of political affiliation of those who burn buildings (nor as to the motivations or number of those who didn't show up to just take advantage of the situation) at protests that turn violent, and I know far more Leftists who encourage speech they don't agree with (this site is a good example, where some members stand out due to their bias over sources, and, yes, they're on "both sides.").

 

[icehorse]

The Holocaust happened. It's a fact. How is it reprehensible or a dangerous law for making people of the past accountable for their horrible actions while ensuring people of the present do not attempt to subvert such a horrible action by denying its existence?

It's Orwellian.

 

[Mister Silver]

It's Orwellian.

Your obsession with the concept does not make it so. You're like a kid who has learned a new word and uses it everywhere and in every situation despite properly understanding context and its value.

 

[icehorse]

No, it not dangerous, it simply requires personal responsibility not to be the one who incites violence or hatred.

And there lies the difference between the US and Europe.

It's not dangerous until things start going off the rails, then it's really dangerous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

I'm not aware of any feminists who have turned violent over feminism. I wouldn't apply the term extremist to any feminists I am aware of. However, I would use the label "radical feminist" to describe the trans-exclusive, man blaming, victimhood embracing, self-described "radfems." What you describe I just call feminism (though not necessarily pro-multiculturalism as that is another issue and some cultures are downright horrible and nasty to women).

 

[icehorse]

Your obsession with the concept does not make it so. You're like a kid who has learned a new word and uses it everywhere and in every situation despite properly understanding context and its value.

I'm done trying to converse with you.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not aware of any feminists who have turned violent over feminism. I wouldn't apply the term extremist to any feminists I am aware of. However, I would use the label "radical feminist" to describe the trans-exclusive, man blaming, victimhood embracing, self-described "radfems." What you describe I just call feminism (though not necessarily pro-multiculturalism as that is another issue and some cultures are downright horrible and nasty to women).

I'm not attached to a particular label having a particular context. I have heard the terms "2nd wave" and "3rd wave" tossed around. So what you just described I *think* (not sure), would be attributed to 3rd wave feminism, which most women don't like, as opposed to the older "2nd wave", which is how most women in the west would self-identify.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Guys..

I hear lots of hand-wringing and finger pointing. Our president is ham-handed and horrible. Bad things happened. The alt-right is a problem.

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

The left and the media are HUGE, and they are ignoring the 1st amendment. Long after this weekend is forgotten, the 1st amendment is what will keep us safe. Keep the 1st amendment front and center, and notice how infrequently it comes up as Charlottesville is discussed.

The racists idiots in VA had every right to express their opinions. Those who came to oppose them had every right to express their opinions as well. How was the 1st Amendment ignored?

 

[leibowde84]

The test is "imminent violence" and I think the asshats know that they stop just short of that.

They might think they do, but I disagree. I think that anyone who spews racial epithets directly at a person of color is inciting imminent violence and can legally get punched in the nuts.

 

[Revoltingest]

They might think they do, but I disagree. I think that anyone who spews racial epithets directly at a person of color is inciting imminent violence and can legally get punched in the nuts.

Can this be generalized?
Anyone spewing racial epithets at white folk can be legally punched.
They can be punched in the vagina too.

 

[leibowde84]

Can this be generalized?
Anyone spewing racial epithets at white folk can be legally punched.
They can be punched in the vagina too.

Not the same, actually. There isn't nearly as much history of black racists committing violent acts against white people. Otoh, there is plenty of historical evidence making it completely reasonable for a person of color to feel threatened. You can say it is unfair, but it is only unfair because of the many violent white racists throughout history. So, you have them to thank.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not the same, actually. There isn't nearly as much history of black racists committing violent acts against white people. Otoh, there is plenty of historical evidence making it completely reasonable for a person of color to feel threatened. You can say it is unfair, but it is only unfair because of the many violent white racists throughout history. So, you have them to thank.

So you'd legalize sexual assault, provided the perp is black, feels
insulted, & the object of the violence is white & male, eh? Uh oh.

 

[leibowde84]

So you'd legalize sexual assault, provided the perp is black, feels
insulted, & the object of the violence is white & male, eh? Uh oh.

Absolutely not. Where on earth did you get that from? I said punch the guy, not sexual assault. And, only if that person is spewing racial epithets directly at you, inciting you to act.