Armed protesters stalk peaceful Muslims at Texas mosque: We want to show force

[Shodan]

@John_Mace

“Bigot” is the general term, and works well in the case of religion.

“Assclown” works better.

Regards,
Shodan

[octopus]

@Monty

Perhaps you would care to show us where this right to intimidate peaceful people at a place of worship is found?

I think it’s a counter productive tactic albeit legal to demonstrate in such a way. But who am I to dare to be the tone police?

[BrainGlutton]

@Declan

It gives them a balanced view point, that regardless of what the “state” may say, they are alien and not welcome, and they exist only because the other side has more guns and laws.

Declan

Rather an unbalanced viewpoint, actually.

[Monty]

@octopus

I think it’s a counter productive tactic albeit legal to demonstrate in such a way. But who am I to dare to be the tone police?

I asked you where the right is to intimidate someone at their place of worship. Do you care to actually answer that specific question, or are you going to do your usual stunt?

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

Muh muh muh MY Sharia!

I don’t practice that Shari’a
I don’t have no crystal ball . . .

[BrainGlutton]

Look, if armed Jack-Chick-style Independent Baptists or some other anti-Catholic Protestant fanatics were to try this at a Catholic church, or armed Neo-Nazis or Klansmen at a black church or a synagogue, would anybody be seriously defending the legality? Wouldn’t that obviously be the kind of situation the police should shut down immediately before something really bad happens?

[octopus]

@Monty

I asked you where the right is to intimidate someone at their place of worship. Do you care to actually answer that specific question, or are you going to do your usual stunt?

I don’t think people ought to intimidate, needlessly, others. I think what they are doing is wrong and reprehensible even if no laws are being violated. I don’t see any on the left condemning left wing intimidation with regards to free speech and I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

Where is the wailing and gnashing of teeth of actual racist assaults by the BLM crowd? Don’t see the left worried about that. How about the calling for muscle to manhandle the press? No consternation from the left. Black only safe place at Princeton? No leftists here pitting that.

So while I deplore right wing intolerance and intimidation I also deplore left wing intolerance and intimidation and hypocrisy. Now all that said, armed protesters are a bigger problem and I think it’s very counterproductive.

[octopus]

@BrainGlutton

Look, if armed Jack-Chick-style Independent Baptists or some other anti-Catholic Protestant fanatics were to try this at a Catholic church, or armed Neo-Nazis or Klansmen at a black church or a synagogue, would anybody be seriously defending the legality? Wouldn’t that obviously be the kind of situation the police should shut down immediately before something really bad happens?

Depends where. Where I live it’s common to see open carry at least with regards to holstered pistol. A few men with holstered pistols assembled peacefully violating no laws might attract some attention but by what right do the police have to detain or arrest? Being uncomfortable is not cause for arrest or the the claim of a crime.

I think it’s tactically and strategically a mistake to protest armed unless absolutely needed. The reason is this. What happens if a counter protest arrives that also happens to be armed? Now you have two, or more, hostile groups with rights to self defense armed and potentially agitated. Nothing good can come from that scenario. Nothing. So I advocate civil protest to avoid unnecessary violence and unnecessary expansion of the state power.

[John_Mace]

@Monty

Perhaps you would care to show us where this right to intimidate peaceful people at a place of worship is found?

The right of assembly and the right to bear arms are in the constitution. There is, as I’m sure you know, no right to be sheltered from a feeling of intimidation by other people excising their rights.

These people may be jerks, but they are breaking no law nor are they violating the rights of anyone else (as rights are defined in the US judicial system).

[Leaper]

This brought to mind an interesting question: in several European countries, stuff like this would, IIRC, be illegal — or at the least, there are more strictures on what we in the U.S. think of as free speech.

Now, we’ve always been taught that such laws are a slippery slope towards the government deciding what is and isn’t offensive or what not. But, AFAIK, that hasn’t happened in any of said European countries. Why not? Or is it, and we just don’t hear about it?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@John_Mace

The right of assembly and the right to bear arms are in the constitution. There is, as I’m sure you know, no right to be sheltered from a feeling of intimidation by other people excising their rights.

These people may be jerks, but they are breaking no law nor are they violating the rights of anyone else (as rights are defined in the US judicial system).

I’m not sure this is true but do not have the legal expertise to know. The Klan did a lot of things to intimidate African Americans (see burning crosses) and they were found to be illegal. I don’t know where the line is.

[joyfool]

@davidm

If a group of armed Muslims gathered outside a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue announcing that they want to show force, people would be screaming “terrorists” and DHS would be investigating.

Tell me I’m wrong.

This. If the reverse were true, it’d be Armageddon.

[octopus]

@Leaper

This brought to mind an interesting question: in several European countries, stuff like this would, IIRC, be illegal — or at the least, there are more strictures on what we in the U.S. think of as free speech.

Now, we’ve always been taught that such laws are a slippery slope towards the government deciding what is and isn’t offensive or what not. But, AFAIK, that hasn’t happened in any of said European countries. Why not? Or is it, and we just don’t hear about it?

There are in fact hate speech laws in Canada and Europe.

[John_Mace]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

I’m not sure this is true but do not have the legal expertise to know. The Klan did a lot of things to intimidate African Americans (see burning crosses) and they were found to be illegal. I don’t know where the line is.

They were not “found to be illegal”. The laws on the books that made certain instances of flag burning illegal were found to be constitutional. Unless there is a Texas law that forbids open carry during a protest, then these guys are not violating any laws.

[Fubaya]

Sure they have the right to a) speak their mind and b) be armed. I have no problem with open carriers and no problem with anti-muslim speech (except that I disagree with it). But when they show up with rifles to where a group of Americans live to speak against them -not in favor or against an issue, but against the very people- it can be harassment, intimidation or threatening behavior. Pull that shit at your ex-wife’s work and see how far the first and second amendment get you.

I’m not saying they need to be arrested, so far things haven’t gotten to that point but they’re clearly getting close to the line where free speech and the right to carry are outweighed by people’s right to go about their business without fear.

If the KKK goes to a black neighborhood to protest blacks, don’t the cops tell them no guns or else they’ll break up the protest? They can have their guns and they can go about their business with them, they can be in black people’s face spewing hate, but I don’t think cops allow both, do they?

[Leaper]

@octopus

There are in fact hate speech laws in Canada and Europe.

Yes? And? Is it your assertion that the very existence of such laws are the slippery slope already? Because I don’t see it that way.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@John_Mace

They were not “found to be illegal”. The laws on the books that made certain instances of flag burning illegal were found to be constitutional. Unless there is a Texas law that forbids open carry during a protest, then these guys are not violating any laws.

Yes, John, this is what I meant when I posted that earlier; the laws that banned certain forms of intimidating expression were found to be constitution by SCOTUS. Let me be a bit clearer in what I was trying to say: there is no guaranteed right to intimidating speech and if speech or a protest can be construed as a “true threat” then that action can be prosecuted under any number of laws. For the purpose of what a “true threat” is, well that is a bit murkier. The 5th circuit stated in Porter v. Ascension School District that

Speech is a true threat and therefore unprotected if an objectively reasonable person would interpret the speech as a serious expression of an intent to cause a present or future harm. The protected status of the threatening speech is not determined by whether the speaker had the subjective intent to carry out the threat; rather, to lose the protection of the First Amendment and be lawfully punished, the threat must be intentionally or knowingly communicated to either the object of the threat or a third person.

It is not clear to me that these bigots parading around with their guns and proclaiming proudly that they want to “show force” is an intentional communication of a threat to a third party, but your blanket statement that they are not breaking any laws is questionable at best.

[BrainGlutton]

@octopus

What happens if a counter protest arrives that also happens to be armed? Now you have two, or more, hostile groups with rights to self defense armed and potentially agitated. Nothing good can come from that scenario. Nothing.

Would you agree the police should shut it down at that point, then?

[John_Mace]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Yes, John, this is what I meant when I posted that earlier; the laws that banned certain forms of intimidating expression were found to be constitution by SCOTUS. Let me be a bit clearer in what I was trying to say: there is no guaranteed right to intimidating speech and if speech or a protest can be construed as a “true threat” then that action can be prosecuted under any number of laws. For the purpose of what a “true threat” is, well that is a bit murkier. The 5th circuit stated in Porter v. Ascension School District that

Well, I can only responding to what you actually posted, not what you meant to post. If there are laws that these guys have broken, I’d be interested in hearing what they are.

[lucid-nonsense]

@John_Mace

If there are laws that these guys have broken, I’d be interested in hearing what they are.

Texas Penal Code, Title 9, Chapter 42. A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

There you go.