Here's the thing about CharlottesvilleIt

[cnm]

I still believe that lots of the demonstrators on the "right" were
trying to save a statue of Robert E. Lee-----hero of "DIXIE"

Symbol of Jim Crow.

 

[cnm]

We've covered the fact that you do not support Free Speech.

Point out where that is covered.

 

[cnm]

Which are you, in your own mind?

I certainly don't identify with Cracker.

 

[Correll]

I strongly doubt that he implied that that meant that no one was allowed to express disagreement.

The tenor of his post was not about permission.

I strongly doubt that he implied in any way that no one was allowed to express disagreement.


Should I take your citing of "tenor" as an admission that you won't be posting him saying anything that supports your claim about what he said?

 

[irosie91]

you can apply a charge of "INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE" so ANY group?

I went over this earlier.

SCOTUS has ruled there is a three-pronged approach to determining whether speech is protected under the First Amendment.

the basis for determining HATE GROUPS----is supposed to hinge on the aspects of group
ideology that lead to violence or infringement of the RIGHTS of other groups. ----the next
debate is "rights"

You can find a way to apply this criteria to virtually ANY group.

It's Unconstitutional!

you can apply a charge of "INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE" so ANY group?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[11] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there are 3 elements which have to be met in order for the speech to not be protected under the First Amendment.

1. There must be an intent to commit a lawless action.
2. There must be a likelihood of the lawless action happening.
3. The likelihood of lawless action must be imminent.

If the speech fails the test on ANY of the three, it is protected under the First Amendment.

the test seems to me to be very OUT OF DATE-------it allows the advocacy of world wide lethal
terrorism by WHOMEVER IS LISTENING OR AN ADHERENT OF OUR IDEOLOGY-------
superannuated garbage.

 

[Correll]

We've covered the fact that you do not support Free Speech.

Point out where that is covered.

Take your time.


First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[irosie91]

I still believe that lots of the demonstrators on the "right" were
trying to save a statue of Robert E. Lee-----hero of "DIXIE"

Symbol of Jim Crow.

did Lee say anything about Jim?

 

[Correll]

Which are you, in your own mind?

I certainly don't identify with Cracker.

Your racism is noted and held against you.


That does not answer my question. DO you consider yourself a liberal, or a lefties or a marxist, or something else?

 

[cnm]

I still believe that lots of the demonstrators on the "right" were
trying to save a statue of Robert E. Lee-----hero of "DIXIE"

Along with their fascist allies.

 

[cnm]

did Lee say anything about Jim?

Ffs. Did Lee put up the statues?

 

[cnm]

Anyway, my tolerance of racist apologism has been exceeded tonight. Enjoy your country.

 

[irosie91]

did Lee say anything about Jim?

Ffs. Did Lee put up the statues?

I believe you did say that the statues were put up by the KKK but failed to provide a link

 

[Correll]

I still believe that lots of the demonstrators on the "right" were
trying to save a statue of Robert E. Lee-----hero of "DIXIE"

Along with their fascist allies.

Which is a big problem for them. Of course.


Funny how Antifa isn't a big problem for you guys.

 

[Correll]

Anyway, my tolerance of racist apologism has been exceeded tonight. Enjoy your country.

Wow, you can't share with us what you identify as politically.


I consider myself a paleo-conservative. See how easy that was?

 

[irosie91]

I still believe that lots of the demonstrators on the "right" were
trying to save a statue of Robert E. Lee-----hero of "DIXIE"

Along with their fascist allies.

Which is a big problem for them. Of course.


Funny how Antifa isn't a big problem for you guys.

which of the GUYS stated that ANTIFA is NOT a big problem -------btw----Donald said
BOTH SIDES -----or ALL SIDES-------of wat-evah-da hell he said

 

[Correll]

I still believe that lots of the demonstrators on the "right" were
trying to save a statue of Robert E. Lee-----hero of "DIXIE"

Along with their fascist allies.

Which is a big problem for them. Of course.


Funny how Antifa isn't a big problem for you guys.

which of the GUYS stated that ANTIFA is NOT a big problem -------btw----Donald said
BOTH SIDES -----or ALL SIDES-------of wat-evah-da hell he said

I just haven't seen the Left paying any price for their "alliance" with them, which seems like much more of a real alliance, then the RIght with the Klaners, btw.

 

[irosie91]

Anyway, my tolerance of racist apologism has been exceeded tonight. Enjoy your country.

Wow, you can't share with us what you identify as politically.


I consider myself a paleo-conservative. See how easy that was?

how paleo? paleo like King Draco of Greece?

 

[BULLDOG]

Cell phone isn't in the constitution either, but I guarantee you they exist. THe OP repeated the right wing talking point that the protesters were nonviolent people, and unexpectedly a few violent people joined them. That has been shown to be bullshit.

I did not say anyone was "non violent" ... read it again if you need to. You have some selective hearing when you're reading or something because I've now corrected you on this twice and I don't intend to keep doing it.

I said, and it is true, that the protesters in Charlottesville were a combination of many groups, some were indeed violent and some were not. It appears by the videos, the most violent were the neo-nazis, the white supremacists and Antifa. I don't believe they were the only people there and I don't even think you believe that. It doesn't matter what percentage or who was worse than the other. Those are superfluous points that mean absolutely nothing here.

The group with the permit had the right to peacefully protest. They didn't have the right to engage in violence and neither did the groups who didn't have permits, who came to incite violence and confront them.

AGAIN--- DISCLAIMER-- I do not support or condone the positions or viewpoints of ANY of the groups. I condemn the violence from ALL the groups. Why does the LEFT seem to have a problem with that? The only thing I can reason is, you support the violence from Antifa while condemning the mere presence of the white supremacists and neo-nazis.

Both sides had permits. That's another goofy mistake the orange buffoon made.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I know we've beaten this topic to death here and there must be at least a few dozen threads on the topic at least, but I feel like there is a profound point or two that needs to be made. You can agree with me or disagree, I don't really care. This is simply my viewpoint on the situation as a whole.

First of all, to view this as a binary left/right issue is patently stupid. In fact, to view this as a singular issue is equally foolish. This is actually several issues rolled into one and it's being promoted as a binary narrative by the media and the liberal left, as well as many on the right who've fallen for the trap.

Let's get some things in order so we have clarity. Charlottesville had proposed removing a Confederate monument citing it's offensiveness to certain citizens. A group of people who opposed this obtained a permit to peacefully protest the removal. The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest. Also showing up was Antifa, a radical extremist left organization who came to violently protest the protesters. The police, whether overtly or passively, were instructed to not intervene and violence erupted between the fringe extremist elements at the protest. It quickly got out of control and resulted in a slimeball white supremacist killing someone with his car.

Since then, the left has exploited the tragedy to score political points and bash Trump, Republicans, the right, Conservatives and everyone who is not a left wing liberal. The right, for the most part, have condemned the actions of the white supremacists and the violence from both sides while questioning where the police were. Trump made the statement that "there were good people on both sides." This was immediately attacked by the left and media who are fully invested in a binary narrative.

Trump was correct. There were good people on both sides. Not both sides of the violent extremist groups, but both sides of the issue regarding the removal of the statue. The peaceful protesters who didn't engage in violence. They were there to exercise their First Amendment rights. And this is where the left (and some on the right) are completely missing the point. There is more than one issue here!

First there is the issue of whether or not a Confederate statue is appropriate. Some say yes, some say no, and it doesn't have anything to do with racism or white supremacy. No doubt, there are some who favor keeping the statues who are white supremacists. There are also some who favor tearing down the statues because they hold a racist view toward white people. But these elements do not represent the vast majority of the general public. Most people who favor keeping the statues are viewing it as a historical thing that we shouldn't change because some may be offended. Most people opposed are doing so in deference to sensitivities of those who are offended. Both sides have a valid and compelling point that has nothing to do with white supremacy.

In a free society, we should be able to engage in these kind of debates without things devolving into violence. We cannot condemn violence from one side while turning a blind eye to violence from the other. We have to consistently condemn ALL the violence because that's how free society operates.

So now we see there is a clear secondary issue here. It's the right of free people to peacefully protest. Whether you agree or disagree with the right or left on this issue or any other, you should support their right to peacefully demonstrate. Violence is totally unacceptable... right OR left! It doesn't matter if you view one side as abhorrent and intolerable, they still have the right to peacefully demonstrate and you don't have the right to violently attack them.

Some on the Left have attempted to argue that "Hate Speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment. This is patently absurd. So-called "Hate Speech" is exactly what IS protected! Non-offensive speech doesn't require protection. The Left has concocted this "Hate Speech" label to apply to any speech they disagree with politically, and that's a very dangerous thing to do. You can denounce what you consider "hate speech" but you don't have any right to shut it down, especially not with violence. Once you've crossed that line into violent acts, you've lost your freedom of speech and you need to go to jail.

I didn't even read the whole thing. Your premise is completely inaccurate from the start.

The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest.

Really?
Here's their flyer highlighting their speakers.

Tell me these guys are merely "peaceful protesters".

 

[Correll]

Anyway, my tolerance of racist apologism has been exceeded tonight. Enjoy your country.

Wow, you can't share with us what you identify as politically.


I consider myself a paleo-conservative. See how easy that was?

how paleo? paleo like King Draco of Greece?

Like Pat Buchanan Paleo.


(I am not claiming to BE pat, fyi)


What do you consider yourself politically?