Race and Terror in Charlottesville

a reply to: Grambler

It does seem as though the mentioning of "the other side" is being used as a deflection. What other purpose does it serve? It does not justify their actions or beliefs in any way by invoking "the other side".

But for others to say that anyone who even breathes a word about the other side being violent is not only deflceting, but a racist is absurd.

I've not seen anyone being called a racist just for mentioning the violence of "the other side".

And posters here take it a step further by saying defending free speech for people they deem nazis make you a racist.

I have seen some posts to that effect. I think it's wrong. Free speech should be protected for all, even those that use free speech in ways we don't like.

a reply to: Grambler

You misunderstand me. As an anarchist I think it is in our first Amendment right to yell "fire" in a theater. People are going to die. Maybe you are missing my point. You can yell "fire" in open field as much as you want. I'm not advocating getting rid of free speech or not allowing the Nazis to scream out their hate. All I'm saying is if the Nazis choose to go to Charlotte and do it the result will be a public safety problem.

Let me give you another example closer to my home in New Jersey. I don't want to pass a law saying you can't use the N word. But if you go to the corner of Lincoln Street and Court Street in Newark New Jersey and yell out at the top of your lungs, "You N******RS are all lazy pieces of Shiite" then you are going to die.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

It does seem as though the mentioning of "the other side" is being used as a deflection. What other purpose does it serve? It does not justify their actions or beliefs in any way by invoking "the other side".

Because some of us would like to see this violence from all sides stop. And ignoring ones sides problems will only cause both sides to ramp up the violence.

Neither side was rational or right in this case. This doesn't mean that I am dismissing the severity of what happened by the right wing nut that killed that girl.


Are you suggesting that the police should not prosecute left wing people that were being violent there?

I've not seen anyone being called a racist just for mentioning the violence of "the other side".

Its happening. See this thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have seen some posts to that effect. I think it's wrong. Free speech should be protected for all, even those that use free speech in ways we don't like.

Of course you are right.

Unfortunately for you, several people now think you are a nazi defender for saying this.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

You misunderstand me. As an anarchist I think it is in our first Amendment right to yell "fire" in a theater. People are going to die. Maybe you are missing my point. You can yell "fire" in open field as much as you want. I'm not advocating getting rid of free speech or not allowing the Nazis to scream out their hate. All I'm saying is if the Nazis choose to go to Charlotte and do it the result will be a public safety problem.

Let me give you another example closer to my home in New Jersey. I don't want to pass a law saying you can't use the N word. But if you go to the corner of Lincoln Street and Court Street in Newark New Jersey and yell out at the top of your lungs, "You N******RS are all lazy pieces of Shiite" then you are going to die.

Yes, and those that killed that person would be murders.

Furthermore, your point here seems to suggest that because that woman showed up to a region she knew would be volatile, she had her death coming.

I reject that in the strongest possible way.

a reply to: Grambler

In the OP's video the Nazi guy said they knew they would be met with resistance and anger. He could have went to a secluded spot in the woods to march.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

In the OP's video the Nazi guy said they knew they would be met with resistance and anger. He could have went to a secluded spot in the woods to march.

Thats not how free speech works.

Again, so you would have said the girl had her death coming,; she knew there was a risk of violence bt showed up anyways.

Again, I think that is asinine.

originally posted by: Grambler
Because some of us would like to see this violence from all sides stop.

I think this situation is much more complicated that just the platitude "some of us would like to see this violence from all sides stop".

I'm not sure I accept the argument you have to be tolerant of intolerance otherwise you are just as guilty as the people who are being intolerant. People organizing to be intolerant of large groups of our population are forming a government within our government.

Your argument about criticizing people who were defending Nazi's rights to free speech as being pro-Nazi reminds me the millions of times I have heard people who criticize the ACLU as being pro-NAMBLA because they defended NAMBLA in some esoteric civil rights case having to do with web page content on the Internet. Would you state right here and now what the ACLU did was the correct thing to do?

a reply to: Grambler

So you are okay with yelling "fire" in a theater. Please explain to me how free-speech works with regards to "fire" in a theater? What did the Supremes mean in their ruling?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Schenck v United States was at least partially overturned in the Brandenburg v Ohio ruling.

You can't keep citing case law that's been overturned to try and make a point. Schenck's "clear and present danger" test was replaced with the Brandenburg "imminent lawless action" test.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: dfnj2015

Schenck v United States was at least partially overturned in the Brandenburg v Ohio ruling.

You can't keep citing case law that's been overturned to try and make a point. Schenck's "clear and present danger" test was replaced with the Brandenburg "imminent lawless action" test.

It seems to me the Nazis shouting hate-speech in Charlotte satisfies both criteria:

The test concludes that speech can be restricted by the First Amendment if it follows two criteria: 1) The speech invites imminent lawless action and 2) The speech is likely to produce said action.

Are there any other cities in the US where the Nazi's could have marched and not have the same lawless actions by the left? I think there might be a few cities in red states where the liberals are not so concentrated. This whole thing seems to me more like yelling "fire" in theater than a simple first amendment rights issue. The Nazis on the right want to use it that way by saying, "See, everything we are saying is true." Let's see how the Nazis do when they march in Texas in September. Depending on the city, it might turn into a ticker tape parade.

a reply to: Grambler

Because some of us would like to see this violence from all sides stop. And ignoring ones sides problems will only cause both sides to ramp up the violence. Neither side was rational or right in this case. This doesn't mean that I am dismissing the severity of what happened by the right wing nut that killed that girl.

Perhaps it's just me, but it does come off as being a "but they do it too" sort of argument, deflecting from their own actions and words.

Are you suggesting that the police should not prosecute left wing people that were being violent there?

I did not say anything to suggest or imply that.

I really don't look at this being a Left or Right issue. I see it as being a group of idiot haters vs. a group of anarchists, both of which came ready to fight.

Unfortunately for you, several people now think you are a nazi defender for saying this.

I don't care. People are going to think whatever they want to and I'm not too concerned about it.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think you'd have a hard time convincing a court that people shouting "blood and soil" is inviting imminent violence. Offensive, sure. Hardly an invitation to start a fight.

Just because language is inflammatory doesn't automatically mean it satisfies the incitement to violence test.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Grambler
Because some of us would like to see this violence from all sides stop.

I'm not sure I accept the argument you have to be tolerant of intolerance otherwise you are just as guilty as the people who are being intolerant. People organizing to be intolerant of large groups of our population are forming a government within our government.

This is ridiculous. What large groups of people are having intolerance acted upon by them by the government.

Your argument about criticizing people who were defending Nazi's rights to free speech as being pro-Nazi reminds me the millions of times I have heard people who criticize the ACLU as being pro-NAMBLA because they defended NAMBLA in some esoteric civil rights case having to do with web page content on the Internet. Would you state right here and now what the ACLU did was the correct thing to do?

The only criticism I have with the ACLU was when they were hesitant to protect conservative speakers like at Berkley.

I would defend the ACLU for sticking up for the free speech of even the most repugnant people like NAMBLA. Just as if I would say any lawyer should be able to defend the most heinous accused people without being judged.

a reply to: Grambler

It's curious, isn't it?

ACLU doesn't do bupkis for Ann Coulter or Milo Ywhatever, but was quite obviously ready to help out in Charlottesville.

Perhaps that's because Charlottesville is a municipal government and UC Berkley isn't? I dunno. But it's certainly interesting.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

So you are okay with yelling "fire" in a theater. Please explain to me how free-speech works with regards to "fire" in a theater? What did the Supremes mean in their ruling?

This issue has nothing to do with yelling fire in a theater.

The reason yelling fire in a theater is illegal is that it is designed to cause mass panic that could cause some to be injured.

A group yelling even disgusting things like "I hate black people" or even "Kill all cops" (though there may be other problems with this) is not the same principal. This is not convincing people they are in immediate live threatening danger with the intent of people being harmed in the panic.

Now, yelling "He's got a gun!" would meet that criteria.

Your interpretation is that no one may say anything that offends the overwhelming majority is exactly antithetical to the idea of free speech.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: dfnj2015

I think you'd have a hard time convincing a court that people shouting "blood and soil" is inviting imminent violence. Offensive, sure. Hardly an invitation to start a fight.

Just because language is inflammatory doesn't automatically mean it satisfies the incitement to violence test.

I think you are missing the point. It's not what I think that matters. It's the people in the area where they were shouting. If the people in the area where they were shouting start going raving mad with violence, the OP video showed they knew they would be met with resistance, then maybe saying something that results in a public safety issue is a problem.

Yeah, it's too bad the people hearing the hate speech don't think, "gee, I should just be quiet and allow my fellow citizens to exercise their first amendment rights because that's what good enlightened citizens do." That's not how it works. People who are passionate about civil rights and injustice in this country can be easily provoked into violence if you push their buttons the right way. The Nazis marching in Charlotte to me is like a doctor it hurts when I do this type moment.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Because some of us would like to see this violence from all sides stop. And ignoring ones sides problems will only cause both sides to ramp up the violence. Neither side was rational or right in this case. This doesn't mean that I am dismissing the severity of what happened by the right wing nut that killed that girl.

Perhaps it's just me, but it does come off as being a "but they do it too" sort of argument, deflecting from their own actions and words.

I can definitely see that. Especially if the person saying that doesn't seem to want to talk to much about the right wing violence.

But I don't see how thats the case if a person is calling out the right wing (or whatever you call it) violence and then calling out the left.

The point is, we have many many members, and people outside of ATS refusing to discuss left wing violence, and insinuating that any discussion of that makes you a nazi sympathizer.

I did not say anything to suggest or imply that.

I really don't look at this being a Left or Right issue. I see it as being a group of idiot haters vs. a group of anarchists, both of which came ready to fight.

Yes thats right, both sides wanted the violence.

The man that ran over those people is responsible for his own actions which were the most egregious, but we should be able to criticize all of the others too.

I don't care. People are going to think whatever they want to and I'm not too concerned about it.

Oh I agree. Its just a shame to see people I thought were capable of a reasonable discussion label so many people racist and refuse to have a discussion.

a reply to: Grambler

Well, I disagree with your opinion. I think the Nazis went to Charlotte on purpose knowing what they were doing would be provocative and possibly violent. Look the OP's video and the guns and weapons the guy puts on the hotel bed during the final interview.

Did I miss your answer about the ACLU? Is the ACLU pro-NAMBLA the same way you are pro-Nazi?

originally posted by: Grambler
Yes thats right, both sides wanted the violence.

I disagree with your opinion. The Nazis went to Charlotte. The liberals were on defense.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I posted this in another thread on this same video.

It makes me question my membership on ATS.

There are a lot of people on ATS who have been defending this. Makes me question if I want to be associated with a forum that have people who defend this kind of crap.

They defend it talking about freedom of speech, this is not freedom of speech this is hate and terrorism.

Thats is a very sobering video thank you for posting.

The problem is that the people here on ATS (and the country) keep talking past each other and no one is willing to hear what the other is trying to say. Instead of having a conversation with our peers we are having arguments with the boogymen in our own heads.

For example it is both true that this is "hate and terrorism" and it is also a mater of "free speech". The two are only mutiualy exclusive in the closed minds unwilling to listen to what others have to say.