Here's the thing about CharlottesvilleIt

[Boss]

The fact that they disagreed with the communities decision.

But Boss had implied the community's decision was determinative.

I implied no such thing.

Again, I gave my opinion on who should decide about monuments and statues. I did not say that such a decision removes the First Amendment rights of anyone to protest peacefully. Nor did I say that support for the right to protest peacefully means I support the views of the protesters.

This thread is being flooded by virtue-signalling liberals who want to paint all on the right as white supremacist sympathizers and/or supporters. I think this is a terrible and dangerous tactic and it will come back to haunt those on the left who are taking this hardline position.

This is not about supporting white supremacists or neo-nazis. It's about the First Amendment and the right to peacefully protest. It's also about the universal condemnation of violence the left seems to want to justify in the name of shutting down free speech.

I will say this again... Non-offensive speech does not require protection!

 

[Boss]

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.

Regardless of whether you think it's "out of date" it's the law according to SCOTUS. In order to circumvent that, you'll need to ratify a new Constitutional Amendment. I predict you would fail miserably.

Are we supposed to convene some committee or panel to determine on a case-by-case basis what is and isn't an appropriate political viewpoint that can be publicly expressed? That's a very dangerous rabbit hole you're headed down.

 

[Boss]

If you have some examples of Unite the Right repudiating the white supremacist element at the protest, by all means,

post them.

BTW, one of the CO-ORGANIZERS of the so-called Unite the Right protest was the founder of this group:

Identity Evropa - Wikipedia

Nathan Damigo. Yes, it's unlikely most people have seen that name...

The guy who organized Unite the Right was active in the Occupy Wall Street movement and voted for Obama.

It simply doesn't matter about the background (or dirt) of the organizers. That has nothing to do with the First Amendment right to free speech in America. We don't deny people their Constitutional rights on the basis of their "creed" (which is their background). This is a flagrant violation of civil rights and very much unconstitutional.

You are really doing something no different than determining a person cannot speak because they are black.

 

[Care4all]

The era the statues were erected were not to commemorate the South's best Traitors to the United States of America...they were put up to intimidate black people during the Jim Crow era, where black people were kept from voting and new laws were created to imprison them, and laws written to take the right to vote away from prisoners who always had the right to vote in prison before the civil war if white.... and segregation etc etc etc

That's your viewpoint and that's FINE! I have NO objection to your viewpoint. I don't necessarily agree with you but I respect your right to express your viewpoint. The thing is, YOU haven't been put in charge of deciding these issues for all! YOU don't get to write yourself a pass to violate the First Amendment because you don't like something.

What's wrong with letting the COMMUNITY decide and you keeping your fucking virtue-signalling nose out of it? It's ironic that YOU are being the FASCIST here! You want to use your iron fist to demand society conform to your demands... Mussolini couldn't be more proud!

you and your rant are whacko crazy to boot!

 

[Boss]

Right. The OP said unite the right was all non violent people. Now you say it doesn't matter. Are you confused?

No, the OP did NOT say that. Read it again. I said they were not a white supremacy or hate group. But that's totally beside the point. It doesn't matter to the First Amendment if they were or weren't.

I'm not going for this "hate group" bullshit because you FASCIST LEFTIES can literally make ANYONE a hate group! We don't suspend our Constitution because you get emotive and declare some group a "hate group" because you disagree with their political views. That's not how the CONSTITUTION works!

So you can basically grow the fuck up and act like adults or we can have another fucking civil war over it.

No, they were made up of a lot of white supremacy and hate groups. The organizer made sure of that.

I don't know what the organizer did or didn't do. IT DOES NOT MATTER!

Read the First Amendment!

We all knew that with your first post. That doesn't change the fact that you unabashedly lied and attempted,(stupidly), to misrepresent the nature of this event. It definitely matters that these supremacist groups were purposely invited, from out of town to bring their shitshow to Charlottesville.

It simply doesn't matter if they were invited or came from out of town. It also doesn't matter what your opinions are regarding their political viewpoints. I vehemently disagree with their political viewpoints, same as you. The difference is, I respect their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and express them.

Let's be perfectly clear and brutally honest here, you want to deny people their First Amendment rights to free speech on the basis of your determining their viewpoints "hateful" and arbitrary label of their group a "hate group." That IS Fascism.

 

[Boss]

you and your rant are whacko crazy to boot!

Again, I don't agree with your viewpoint but I support your right to express it.

Now..... I COULD label your speech "hate speech" and determine you belong to a "hate group" and engage in a movement to have your voice silenced in the public square. But.... I'm not a Fascist!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Right. The OP said unite the right was all non violent people. Now you say it doesn't matter. Are you confused?

No, the OP did NOT say that. Read it again. I said they were not a white supremacy or hate group. But that's totally beside the point. It doesn't matter to the First Amendment if they were or weren't.

I'm not going for this "hate group" bullshit because you FASCIST LEFTIES can literally make ANYONE a hate group! We don't suspend our Constitution because you get emotive and declare some group a "hate group" because you disagree with their political views. That's not how the CONSTITUTION works!

So you can basically grow the fuck up and act like adults or we can have another fucking civil war over it.

No, they were made up of a lot of white supremacy and hate groups. The organizer made sure of that.

I don't know what the organizer did or didn't do. IT DOES NOT MATTER!

Read the First Amendment!

We all knew that with your first post. That doesn't change the fact that you unabashedly lied and attempted,(stupidly), to misrepresent the nature of this event. It definitely matters that these supremacist groups were purposely invited, from out of town to bring their shitshow to Charlottesville.

It simply doesn't matter if they were invited or came from out of town. It also doesn't matter what your opinions are regarding their political viewpoints. I vehemently disagree with their political viewpoints, same as you. The difference is, I respect their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and express them.

Let's be perfectly clear and brutally honest here, you want to deny people their First Amendment rights to free speech on the basis of your determining their viewpoints "hateful" and arbitrary label of their group a "hate group." That IS Fascism.

Let's be perfectly clear and brutally honest here,

Good idea. You lied and deliberately misrepresented the the nature of the event and it's planning.

 

[MarcATL]

The background of the person/s involved was relevant when the person's involved was named Trayvon Martin.

Remember how the right responded to that?

Now watch the palookas arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE now.

Political expediency, aka full. blown. lies.

Like I said,

Here's the thing about CharlottesvilleIt

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Where you're off the rails is defending Trump's lunacy of morally equating the two sides which clashed.

The right was promoting bigotry against blacks and Jews, in some cases, calling for their death.

The left was there to squash that message of hate.

While it's unfortunate it resulted in violence, for which both sides are responsible, the two platforms are not morally equivalent.

The right was promoting bigotry against blacks and Jews, in some cases, calling for their death.

No fair, only the left gets to promote bigotry against blacks and Jews, in some cases, calling for their death, eh comrade?

The left was there to squash that message of hate.

And replace it with their own message of hate.

the two platforms are not morally equivalent.

The Nazi thug losers are equivalent to the Commie Antifa thug losers.

So you're a Nazi sympathizer because there are some Commies left around ?

lol, very noble of you to admit that lol.

So you're a Nazi sympathizer because there are some Commies left around ?

No.

I can laugh at the Nazi thug losers and still understand that the Commie Antifa thugs are losers.

 

[Boss]

Good idea. You lied and deliberately misrepresented the the nature of the event and it's planning.

I did no such thing.

Unite the Right Rally

Organizer: Jason Kessler

The portion of the OP you are critical of was intended to present a rough overview of the events which took place. It wasn't a fucking documentary. Furthermore, my presentation of the events has nothing to do with the issue of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, OR the issue of the Confederate monuments.

Now for the record... it does not matter if Jason Kessler is the Grand Dragon of the KKK and Unite the Right was a Klan rally. It wouldn't matter if Jason Kessler were the leader of the New Black Panthers and Unite the Right was Black Lives Matter. My position is the same either way. The point I am making in the OP is the same regardless of the participants or their political views.

As much as you want to pretend this is some right-wing advocation of white supremacy viewpoints, it's just NOT. This is about a very basic and fundamental freedom we should all support. For some reason, those on the left don't seem to get that. I don't understand that... I'd love to know why? It seems that you wish to shut down free speech for people you disagree with. I think, as a collective nation, we must reject that in no uncertain terms.

 

[Boss]

The background of the person/s involved was relevant when the person's involved was named Trayvon Martin.

Remember how the right responded to that?

Now watch the palookas arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE now.

Political expediency, aka full. blown. lies.

Like I said,

Here's the thing about CharlottesvilleIt

Nope... Sorry! No one attempted to shut down free speech over Trayvon Martin.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Good idea. You lied and deliberately misrepresented the the nature of the event and it's planning.

I did no such thing.

Unite the Right Rally

Organizer: Jason Kessler

The portion of the OP you are critical of was intended to present a rough overview of the events which took place. It wasn't a fucking documentary. Furthermore, my presentation of the events has nothing to do with the issue of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, OR the issue of the Confederate monuments.

Now for the record... it does not matter if Jason Kessler is the Grand Dragon of the KKK and Unite the Right was a Klan rally. It wouldn't matter if Jason Kessler were the leader of the New Black Panthers and Unite the Right was Black Lives Matter. My position is the same either way. The point I am making in the OP is the same regardless of the participants or their political views.

As much as you want to pretend this is some right-wing advocation of white supremacy viewpoints, it's just NOT. This is about a very basic and fundamental freedom we should all support. For some reason, those on the left don't seem to get that. I don't understand that... I'd love to know why? It seems that you wish to shut down free speech for people you disagree with. I think, as a collective nation, we must reject that in no uncertain terms.

You did. I called you on it. Apparently you don't read your own thread.

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.
View attachment 145342
Tell me these guys are merely "peaceful protesters".

 

[Boss]

You did. I called you on it. Apparently you don't read your own thread.

No, I've read the thread that I wrote. As I said, you are parsing out a portion of the OP to make an irrelevant point. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic or point outlined in the OP.

I've presented you links to the rally and organizer in full disclosure. I've also repeatedly denounced the stated viewpoints of the organizer and the rally itself. As much as you wish to tie me to their views, I'm not going to let you do that. Now you can certainly keep trying, like the dishonest little piece of shit you are, I can't stop you.

The point of the OP is to support freedom of speech and denounce violence. If you have a disagreement with that, you need to express it. So far, all I see from you is an attempt to dishonestly smear people and lie. If that's the only thing you're capable of, let the record stand that you had no valid counter-argument. I'm cool with that!

 

[MarcATL]

Nope... Sorry! No one attempted to shut down free speech over Trayvon Martin.

You dumb, dishonest, dumbass...

When you brought up that it doesn't matter what their background was, it had NOTHING to do with suppressing their freedom of speech, it had to do w/justifying the violence.

In the case of Trayvon Martin, you and rest of the rabid right IMMEDIATELY dug up his past, and brought up how he smoked weed, and how he got suspended from school, and how he pulled a girl's hair when he was in 1st grade, you did that to justify the violence perpetrated on him by the murderer Zimmerman.

Don't move the goalpost and/or muddy the waters talking about freedom of speech now. It has NOTHING to do with the argument.

You can't have it both ways hack. Either a person's past is relevant or it's not.

 

[Boss]

In the case of Trayvon Martin, you and rest of the rabid right IMMEDIATELY dug up his past, and brought up how he smoked weed, and how he got suspended from school, and how he pulled a girl's hair when he was in 1st grade, you did that to justify the violence perpetrated on him by the murderer Zimmerman.

None of that has one single solitary goddamn thing to do with freedom of speech. Nothing!

 

[Boss]

You can't have it both ways hack. Either a person's past is relevant or it's not.

When it comes to the inalienable right to free speech, it's irrelevant.

 

[MarcATL]

In the case of Trayvon Martin, you and rest of the rabid right IMMEDIATELY dug up his past, and brought up how he smoked weed, and how he got suspended from school, and how he pulled a girl's hair when he was in 1st grade, you did that to justify the violence perpetrated on him by the murderer Zimmerman.

None of that has one single solitary goddamn thing to do with freedom of speech. Nothing!

Who said it did? You did jackass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope... Sorry! No one attempted to shut down free speech over Trayvon Martin.

You dumb, dishonest, dumbass...

When you brought up that it doesn't matter what their background was, it had NOTHING to do with suppressing their freedom of speech, it had to do w/justifying the violence.

In the case of Trayvon Martin, you and rest of the rabid right IMMEDIATELY dug up his past, and brought up how he smoked weed, and how he got suspended from school, and how he pulled a girl's hair when he was in 1st grade, you did that to justify the violence perpetrated on him by the murderer Zimmerman.

Don't move the goalpost and/or muddy the waters talking about freedom of speech now. It has NOTHING to do with the argument.

You can't have it both ways hack. Either a person's past is relevant or it's not.

Trayvon's criminal past is relevant when discussing his final crime.

 

[OKTexas]

The era the statues were erected were not to commemorate the South's best Traitors to the United States of America...they were put up to intimidate black people during the Jim Crow era, where black people were kept from voting and new laws were created to imprison them, and laws written to take the right to vote away from prisoners who always had the right to vote in prison before the civil war if white.... and segregation etc etc etc

History shows they were not put up, for any kind of goodness or commemoration in a good sense of an alleged war hero or heritage.

That's just a fact.

so WHY is keeping these statues up, when they were placed where they are for nefarious and evil reasons, so important? Makes no sense to me???

They belong in a Museum, to commemorate History, with a lot more details.

Funny nazi palousey's daddy said different, in dedicating statues of Lee and Jackson he said they fought to defend sacred institutions.


.

 

[Boss]

In the case of Trayvon Martin, you and rest of the rabid right IMMEDIATELY dug up his past, and brought up how he smoked weed, and how he got suspended from school, and how he pulled a girl's hair when he was in 1st grade, you did that to justify the violence perpetrated on him by the murderer Zimmerman.

None of that has one single solitary goddamn thing to do with freedom of speech. Nothing!

Who said it did? You did jackass.

Nope. YOU are the jerkwater wanting to talk about the relevance of someone's past and a completely unrelated incident to avoid addressing MY argument regarding protection of free speech and denouncement of violence. It's yet another example of how utterly despicable, dishonest and disconnected from reality leftarded liberals have become.