Race and Terror in Charlottesville

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think you are missing the point.

No, I'm not.

It's not what I think that matters.

Correct.

It's the people in the area where they were shouting.

The people of Charlottesville don't get to decide how to interpret the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Nor do the people of any other municipality. Not me. Not you. Not Grambler. The Supreme Court does that, and they've defined the litmus test for free speech.

"It'll upset people" is not that litmus test.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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.

But wait a minute. You said the fact that the nazis haad weapons proved they wanted violence.

Well we know the leftists had weapons too, but for some reasons that isn't indicitive of them wanting violence?

Not to mention the paast history of groups like antifa engaging in violence almost every single time they show up.

But its ok right, because they are always provoked.

And yes, you did miss my answer to the NAMBLA thing.

I guess I will repeat it here.

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: DanDanDat

What are you talking about Grambler and I have been loving each other with respectful conversation.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DanDanDat

What are you talking about Grambler and I have been loving each other with respectful conversation.

Perhaps you can teach others the art.

originally posted by: Grambler
Well we know the leftists had weapons too, but for some reasons that isn't indicitive of them wanting violence?

Not to mention the paast history of groups like antifa engaging in violence almost every single time they show up.

I don't disagree with most what you said in this post. And I do appreciate your appreciation for the ACLU defending NAMBLA in a first amendment rights case doesn't mean they are pro-NAMBLA as stated millions of times by many conservatives. And I agree with your sentiment on Berkley.

I do want to comment of two parts above. I don't know if the left had weapons. None of the Nazi protesters died or were killed by violence as far as I can tell. But you are right, we can both agree, violence on either side is not good. But I hope you can agree or at least see my point a view a little bit that going to Charlotte had a lot to do with the way this whole event unfolded. I hope you watched the video in the OP from beginning to end. I think the video is pretty powerful.

I hope you can support antifa's 1st Amendment rights as well as the Nazis. I have no problem with the Nazis free speech. I'm sure there are thousands of Nazi websites in this country. I choose not to participate in their ideology because it doesn't make sense to me. However, as long as antifa doesn't do violence no problem with people standing up to intolerance and fighting injustice. Or do you think people should just sit back and accept injustice in society because it is what Ayn Rand would do? Maybe members of antifa are overreacting snowflakes or whatever label is now popular. I don't know what level injustice people are experiencing that would drive them to riot in the streets or do violence. I see what antifa do and wonder what is bothering them so much.

I listened to what the Nazis are complaining about. I think they are bunch of whining losers.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Of course I defend antifa's right to have free speech.

I will go one step further, I support Radical Islamist right to free speech.

As long as they are not threatening violence, anything should go.


Now of course this only flies on public property (I am under no inclination to listen to some nazi in my house) and may need things like permits, etc., but you get my drift.

And of course the unite the right rally went to where they would have opposition; the entire point was to go to the statue that is to be taken down, hence most people didn't want the statue and wouldn't want them.

But again, we don't get to limit free speech on the feelings of the local population.

Ironically, this was the same argument separate but equal made.

"I don't mind black people having nice restaurants and speaking their mind, just not here!"

It was wrong then, its wrong now.

originally posted by: WUNK22
The left always wants free speech, as long as they agree with it.a reply to: DBCowboy

The left always wants free speech, as long as they agree with it.

The right always wants free speech, as long as they agree with it.

Ideologies always wants free speech, as long as they agree with it.


I feel every ideology likes free speech if it supports that ideology and hates it if it is in criticism of it. The notion of free speech should be beyond left and right it should in principle be neutral I know that in practice that is not the case though because we are humans that fall prey to our egos and get blinded by the reality tunnels of our belief systems.