Boston Free Speech Rally: What The News did NOT Cover

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: mobiusmale
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.

Certain (unnamed) "deplorable racists" were supposed to speak about free speech, and so they were prevented from speaking...as was their right under the First Amendment...by an angry mob.

They chose not to show up.

They were not denied by the gevernment the ability to hold their gathering.

How was their first amendment right violated?

Oh I don't know.................umm perhaps knowing the threat of violence from people who DON'T believe in the Constitution and Freedom of Assembly?

Just guessin here.....

originally posted by: JIMC5499

They were smart enough to smell a setup.

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.

Still waiting to see someone explain how their rights were violated.

originally posted by: RespectfullyDisagree
a reply to: eNumbra

Nothing says tolerance like intimidation and the threat of violence.

The tolerance paradox, at which point does tolerance for intolerance become unacceptable?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: seeker1963 So we meet again I see. This subjecr is a touchy one and all you do is toe the part of no. Though the left is doing that now but the right does not even want the Dems involved. Look we all have our disagreements but at some point we have to work together. Instead of a small response with a thumbs down how we work out a plan TOGETHER and actually get snip done.

I would gladly have a Conversation with someone who is actually willing to have one!

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: mobiusmale

Tolerance for intolerance is not acceptable. No apology needed.

So you are for the mob mentality and against the Constitution?

No wonder you guys are getting scared. The pendulum is swinging back and ya'll are so scared you are willing to burn the country to the ground rather than think logically and stop the insanity.

The goal and purpose of the white supremacists is to take away Constitution rights of a huge group of citizens in this country. When a group's purpose of organizing is to take away Constitutional rights of others I'm sure that group is entitled to have Constitution rights. If the purpose of the group is to undermine the Constitution isn't some kind of breaking the law?

It's really simple argument to say you have to protect other's free speech even if you don't like what they are a saying. This is not simple political opposition speech. This is taking away the Constitutional rights of others speech. I think it has to be handled different.

I get you right wingers have your panties in bunch over the 40,000 protesters. Only 10 or so your white supremacist friends showed up. But keep trying to undermine the Constitution but try not to be upset when the objects of the hate group show up in mass.

The goal of many radical feminists and antifa types is the destruction of our institutions.

Therefore i should be able label anyone on the left a radical leftist and shut down their speech with violence, right?

originally posted by: eNumbra


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.

Still waiting to see someone explain how their rights were violated.

Unfortunately you have been misinformed.

It is a common misconception that only that the constitution only protects people from the government attacking their free speech.

This is incorrect.

Private groups or indiviuals can also violate your free speech, using violence to shut people up or force them out would be one of the most serious ways.

The 4th amendment protects from the government unreasonable searching or seizing your property. Does that mean that any private individual can search and seize your property and your rights have not been violated?

Of course not.

The right to free speech is actually a much older, broader concept than the First Amendment. Like other fundamental human rights, it’s something people innately possess (including all those non-Americans you may have heard of), and it exists independently of any government.

Which means free speech is not only about what the government can or can’t do. The right to free speech means it’s wrong for any entity, governmental or not, to try to silence you.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people parroting this point aren’t grasping the finer details, and coming to believe that as long as it’s not a government agency censoring you, then anything goes. I’ve even seen the sentiment expressed that censorship can only be done by the government, which simply isn’t true. There are many other entities that can censor you. They may not be legally inhibiting your freedom of speech, but they are inhibiting it, and in some cases it can be just as wrong as when the government does it.

www.agonybooth.com...

But this type of argument is missing a major point. “People will say free speech only extends to an action of the government, and that’s not right,” Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Salon.

...


Furthermore, there are ways the First Amendment can be applied that don’t specifically concern laws being made that affect speech. In the spirit of protecting First Amendment rights, the government must prevent speech from being silenced when that is possible.

The government has to prevent an angry mob from preventing a person from exercising his or her First Amendment rights. “When it comes to preventing mob rule, the main function of the government is to make sure that people with unpopular views aren’t silenced,” Lukianoff said. “You can have mob censorship.”

Lukianoff has written about an old concept called the “heckler’s veto,” which is when speech is silenced to prevent a violent response from others.

www.salon.com...

a reply to: Grambler

Can we just agree breaking the law is breaking the law. I think that would be a good place to find common ground.

If the 40,000 protested beat to the death the white supremacist I think people involved should be tried for murder. Can we at least agree on the idea that the law must be enforced.

I don't have a problem with white supremacists hate speech. The white supremacists have tons of websites. They websites are just not very popular. So in the marketplace of ideas the Nazis are not getting much traction.

a reply to: Sillyolme

This isn't true. Republicans or conservatives are not being put into the same camp as those hate groups.

BULLSH**
Complete and utter BULLSH**.

I was not so subtly branded a white nationalist for not commenting on all this, other than to say stop fanning the flames, that every thread has turned out the same and it's time we step back and realize that we, the very ones who claim to be above all this, are only following the MSM script.
You on the Left label anyone who doesn't follow your song and dance and you are so full of the hate you claim to be against. You are and have been, for free speech unless it's something you don't agree with. Then, it's open season to label, hate and attack, whether it be verbally or physically. You use the right to free speech to spew your garbage, while seeking to deny those rights to everyone but yourselves.
You are a party of hate, bigotry and violence. You want to see a Nazi ? Look in the mirror.

a reply to: Grambler

It is a common misconception that only that the constitution only protects people from the government attacking their free speech.

From your own source:

“There’s never been a Supreme Court case that said that there’s a First Amendment violation when an entirely private entity regulates speech,” Ronald Collins, a law professor at the University of Washington, told Salon. He explained you can have a “denial of free speech that doesn’t involve the government” or a “censorship that doesn’t involve the government,” but you can’t have a First Amendment violation that doesn’t involve the government.

The government must be involved for it to be a violation of the 1st amendment.

The 4th amendment protects from the government unreasonable searching or seizing your property. Does that mean that any private individual can search and seize your property and your rights have not been violated? Of course not.

When someone enters your property and takes it, they are not charged with violating the 4th amendment. They are charged with other crimes, such as theft or breaking and entering.

Same thing with free speech.

a reply to: eNumbra

I would argue that it's definitely not when your feelings are hurt by something somebody said.

"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."

-Karl Popper

I would venture to guess that most of the American public doesnt support white supremacist or Nazi beliefs so I think we're okay on that front.

These are the guys that the left doesn't want the president to comdemn? Noted.

There is a post on that Twitter account that gives this link so Democrats can learn who they support or something.

www.theepochtimes.com...

The Communist Origins of the Antifa Extremist Group

Group promoted communist dictatorship in Germany on Soviet Union's behalf, and labelled all ideologies other than communism as 'fascism'

The whole thing looks a lot like satire.

a reply to: DAVID64

I remember many right wingers putting the ACLU in the same camp with NAMBLA over a free-speech issue. Do you support the ACLU now even though they are pro-NAMBLA according to many right wingers?

Those against the Constitution are essentially putting themselves in the same place they condemn the Confederacy for.
I suggest you find a country without a pesky Constitution so you can find out what police can do when they don't have any silly restraints about "individual rights" and other such right wing nonsense.

I hope all Americans are paying very close attention to what is happening to free speech in their Country.

We are.

The anti's are so far right of voltaire they act like NAZIS.

And for those that forgot or just ignore who voltaire was.

A famous leftist that said this once upon a time.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: mobiusmale
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.

Certain (unnamed) "deplorable racists" were supposed to speak about free speech, and so they were prevented from speaking...as was their right under the First Amendment...by an angry mob.

They chose not to show up.

They were not denied by the gevernment the ability to hold their gathering.

How was their first amendment right violated?

The Police had to errect a half mile barrier and escort the free speech participants out for fear of "counterprotestors" using violence. From the live feeds we watched as it happened, the counterprotestors were pretty deplorable in their behavior. Take away those barriers and if the police stand down, it would have got ugly in a sec. The Boston PD did a great job, unlike the lackeys in Charlottesville. Somebody needs to sue the Charlottesville PD for their lack of plan and even worse, lack of presence.

Using a credible threat of violence to silence someone Is not something to be proud of.

a reply to: introvert

Again, you are the only one saying free speech is only the first amendment.

I never said that the rally had their first amendment rights violated. I said the ones that were physically attacked or blocked to prevent them from being heard had their free speech violated.

You are terribly confused.

The link I posted lays out quite clearly how it is more than that.

It even a dressing specifically of a mobs ability to violated someone free speech, like in Boston.

Further more, the part of that post that you linked specifically refutes your claim.

Its says denials of Free speech can be done by non government actors, its just not a 1st amendment issue.

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: mobiusmale


Check out Boston Antifa's Twitter page!


Keep in mind this is just what they put out there for the public to see.

This excerpt from your link about says it all...

No room for capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, "classical liberals" or supporters of the US constitution in our city.

Yep! I pretty much just refer to them as George Soros Communists.

They hate everybody who isn't one of them! For those of us who studied history, their whole shtick of being anti fascist is utterly delusional.

lol

your lack of any intellect humours me.

say something else funny.

say he funds communism rather than actually oppose it.

i've told my friends to check this place out for stupidity, it never fails.

originally posted by: growler

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: mobiusmale


Check out Boston Antifa's Twitter page!


Keep in mind this is just what they put out there for the public to see.

This excerpt from your link about says it all...

No room for capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, "classical liberals" or supporters of the US constitution in our city.

Yep! I pretty much just refer to them as George Soros Communists.

They hate everybody who isn't one of them! For those of us who studied history, their whole shtick of being anti fascist is utterly delusional.

lol

your lack of any intellect humours me.

say something else funny.

say he funds communism rather than actually oppose it.

i've told my friends to check this place out for stupidity, it never fails.

You told your "friends"?

Now I know you are an Antifa Larper!

Anyone who is an Antifa member would not say friends, they would say Comrades!

a reply to: Grambler

Again, you are the only one saying free speech is only the first amendment.

It's not.

The first,9th,and 10th, and 14th amendments are also in play.

Concerning speech.

The 9th.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Basically put the neither the state or the mob can interpret the powers listed in the constitution to deny or disparage ( same thing as infringe) the RIGHTS of someone else.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Free speech was a guranteed right for ALL people.

And it clearly says PEOPLE.

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Clearly said right there they No person can be denied equal protection and their RIGHTS to life and liberty.

The anti's are willfully violating 4 guaranteed rights.

a reply to: Grambler

Again, you are the only one saying free speech is only the first amendment.

That is not what I said.

You were talking about the constitution and it's amendments. All I wanted to show is that only the government can violate the 1st or 4th amendments.

I never said that the rally had their first amendment rights violated. I said the ones that were physically attacked or blocked to prevent them from being heard had their free speech violated.

They would be charged with assault, or other charges, and not with violating their free speech.

It even a dressing specifically of a mobs ability to violated someone free speech, like in Boston.

I agree. Again, I was speaking to the legal aspects of it.

One would not be charged with violating someone's free speech. They would be charged with other crimes, if they acted-out in a way to shut someone up.

It is the government's responsibility to ensure the mob does not act upon those speaking -out.

You are terribly confused.

No. I think I have a pretty firm grasp on the issue. Legally-speaking, a person cannot violate someone's right to free speech. Other acts have to take place and those are the violations.

Holy crap!
Did anybody check that BostonAntifa twitter handle that was posted?

These guys are extremist to the nth degree.

Anarcho-communist group set out to destroy America. They say as much on their page.

These guys are nuts!

How is anyone actually defending them?

a reply to: introvert

I made it quite clear on the thread the other day and this one that I was not discussing the first amendment, I was saying that many rally attendees had their freedom of speech violated.

Heck, the protest was against a free speech rally.

But I see no problem with you pointing out that the first amendment only deals with government infringements on free speech.

Can we both agree though that using violence to silence someone is inhibiting their free speech?