# Nazis at a Pride parade - How, exactly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2019, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464 "2019-06-13T04:09:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2019, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/21 "2019-06-14T19:42:18Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The First Amendment protects rioting? In a sense, I would expect. What’s to stop an officer from saying that he saw the person about to destroy something, or whatever? “Rioting” is a relatively subjective thing, versus “broke a window” or “set something on fire”, and it could simply be treated as a term that means “protesting in a way that we don’t like”. Granted, there are a few similar distinctions in law. Serial killers are eligible to be prosecuted for a slightly more extreme form of murder than your average killer; people who murder in the name of ISIS are convicted of foreign terrorism, while a person murders in the name of the KKK are just murderers; and so on. So long as you can define the term “riot” tightly enough to distinguish it from “protesting”, it’s probably possible to set up a specific “riot” law that adds on above destruction of property and arson. But, murder isn’t a protected right, whereas protesting is. That makes that a harder proposition - let alone adding on the death penalty to it. It would be reasonable to say that the death penalty would have a chilling effect on anyone even considering a peaceable protest. The Supreme Court would be liable to consider that. I’m sure that there has been some LEO somewhere in time who told people they had to go home or he’d shoot them, back in the Old West or whenever. And I wouldn’t be too too surprised if a city statute was passed somewhere. But I’d be relatively surprised if there was one at the state level, and astonished if it survived a Supreme Court review. Certainly I’m open to being proved wrong, but the 1st Amendment has been strongly defended through the duration of the nation, without lapse, so far as I’ve ever seen. Outside of some small rules like being unable to name your child “I hate Jews” or inciting violence, there’s not a lot that has ever trumped it. Incitement to riot is a thing, but it doesn’t appear to be a particularly large crime. ---
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2019, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/22 "2019-06-14T20:03:53Z")
> [@MeanJoe](#): > > They are there, protecting both the parade participants, spectators, and protestors because as you can imagine the religious protestors presence and actions are not exactly ignored or quietly welcomed. It reminds me of the Detroit situation, which saddens me greatly, but my immediate assumption despite attempts to spin it otherwise, is the police were doing their jobs in providing protection for everyone in a very volatile situation. Exactly correct. If there’s a small (defined by the police) group of assholes or non-assholes moving down the sidewalk along with the parade and yelling shit, the thing that makes the most sense is to have a moving cordon with them. Until it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/23 "2019-06-14T22:37:47Z")
Around here, many protests consist of a group of people walking on the sidewalk, usually yelling the same thing in unison, with some carrying signs. They don’t step in the street except at marked crosswalks, and then only with the light. In fact, this is the way organized picket lines are set up. Yell, but don’t block driveways or intersections. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2019, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/24 "2019-06-14T23:58:56Z")
There are certainly laws against rioting. California’s anti-rioting law is pretty broad; basically any disturbance caused by more than one person is a riot: “Any use of force or violence . . . or any threat to use force and violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot.” Yes, two people can constitute a riot. Furthermore, there is a law against _attempted rioting_, which is a little hard to imagine occurring. > **[Rioting, San Francisco Style](http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/11/rioting-sf-style.html)** > > As you may have heard, the San Francisco Giants won the World Series, and anytime somebody wins a championship, of course, things must be set on fire. There were reports that one or more SF vi… ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2019, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/25 "2019-06-15T00:05:48Z")
> [@markn\_1](#): > > There are certainly laws against rioting. California’s anti-rioting law is pretty broad; basically any disturbance caused by more than one person is a riot: “Any use of force or violence . . . or any threat to use force and violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot.” Yes, two people can constitute a riot. Furthermore, there is a law against _attempted rioting_, which is a little hard to imagine occurring. > > [Rioting, San Francisco Style – Lowering the Bar](http://loweringthebar.net/2010/11/rioting-sf-style.html) No death penalty and fairly clearly defined as an incitement to commit arson or violence. No actual relationship to protesting (e.g. assembling). You could charge someone with “rioting” at a dance party, where someone decided to violently crash the evening. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2019, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/26 "2019-06-15T00:20:27Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I am questioning, though, whether that’s factually accurate, because so far as I can tell, a content-neutral “they have a permit and you don’t, so get lost” is actually constitutional. That works if what both groups were doing required a permit. It’s not even really about adjudicating between permits at that point. If a group is doing something that should require a permit and they don’t have one they can be told to get out. The Toledo Riots of 2005 show a problem with that. The Neo-Nazi march through a majority minority neighborhood didn’t require a permit. They intentionally constrained themselves to public sidewalks. There was nothing in the law that required a group of a couple of dozen people to get a permit to go on an entirely legal walk together. That they also chose to carry signs was irrelevant. Basically they worked right up to the limits of what they could do legally without having to go through the permitting process. The police couldn’t stop them from going on their walk in advance; it was perfectly legal. While the neo-nazis were still forming up to start their walk by where they parked things were already escalating towards violence. At that point they lawfully ordered the Nazis to leave and gave them a police escort out of town for their safety. The police also ordered the Anti-Racist Action counter protesters and angry people living in the neighborhood to disperse. That order took a little bit longer and had to be implemented by force. The actual rioting was by the counter-protesters after the neo-Nazis were long gone. The neo-Nazi organization involved in that incident was the National Socialist Movement based in **Detroit, Michigan.** Guess which group planned this event in Detroit? Yep the [same one](https://www.msn.com/g00/en-us/news/us/white-nationalist-group-interrupts-detroit-pride-event-members-appear-to-urinate-on-israeli-flag/ar-AACCGvZ?li=BBnbfcL&i10c.ua=1&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.dv=11). I suspect their plan didn’t require a permit. It’s a proven technique for them. There may even have been some of the same people involved in both the Toledo riot and this event. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2019, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/27 "2019-06-15T02:38:01Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > That works if what both groups were doing required a permit. It’s not even really about adjudicating between permits at that point. If a group is doing something that should require a permit and they don’t have one they can be told to get out. > > The Toledo Riots of 2005 show a problem with that. The Neo-Nazi march through a majority minority neighborhood didn’t require a permit. They intentionally constrained themselves to public sidewalks. There was nothing in the law that required a group of a couple of dozen people to get a permit to go on an entirely legal walk together. That they also chose to carry signs was irrelevant. Basically they worked right up to the limits of what they could do legally without having to go through the permitting process. The police couldn’t stop them from going on their walk in advance; it was perfectly legal. While the neo-nazis were still forming up to start their walk by where they parked things were already escalating towards violence. At that point they lawfully ordered the Nazis to leave and gave them a police escort out of town for their safety. The police also ordered the Anti-Racist Action counter protesters and angry people living in the neighborhood to disperse. That order took a little bit longer and had to be implemented by force. The actual rioting was by the counter-protesters after the neo-Nazis were long gone. > > The neo-Nazi organization involved in that incident was the National Socialist Movement based in **Detroit, Michigan.** Guess which group planned this event in Detroit? Yep the [same one](https://www.msn.com/g00/en-us/news/us/white-nationalist-group-interrupts-detroit-pride-event-members-appear-to-urinate-on-israeli-flag/ar-AACCGvZ?li=BBnbfcL&i10c.ua=1&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.dv=11). I suspect their plan didn’t require a permit. It’s a proven technique for them. There may even have been some of the same people involved in both the Toledo riot and this event. But that is the heckler’s veto that causes the problem. Forget about the labels because the government must be neutral to speech. As you concede, nothing at all illegal about a group of people walking down the sidewalks and holding signs. But then another group gathers and threatens violence against the first group and the police order the first group to leave town. The lesson learned: The way to shut someone up is to threaten them. That’s not right. ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2019, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/28 "2019-06-15T14:16:31Z")
The poor poor nazis. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2019, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/29 "2019-06-15T15:16:04Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > The poor poor nazis. Did you miss the part about how government has to be neutral to speech? It is easy to not have sympathy for some groups until that group is “Democrats.” ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/30 "2019-06-15T16:03:22Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > In the UK, under [The Riot Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act) (1715 and repealed in 1973) it was established that a group of more than twelve people who were “unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together” failed to disperse within one hour [of the RA being read], then anyone remaining gathered was guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy, punishable by death. > > Maybe the death penalty (especially "without benefit of clergy) would be coming it a bit strong, even for Nazis, but it might establish that 12 is a sufficient number of people. I’d seen the phrase but didn’t know what it meant: [Benefit of clergy - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_of_clergy) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/31 "2019-06-15T16:20:32Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I’d seen the phrase but didn’t know what it meant: [Benefit of clergy - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_of_clergy) And you’ll notice how it evolved: it eventually had nothing at all to do with being a member of the clergy or anything of the sort. It was simply a mechanism to mitigate the harshness of the penalty, usually death for fairly minor crimes, and allow mercy. Then the tug of war developed by legislators wanting to be tough on a particular crime and eliminating it for their pet crime. You see this today. Laws allow people to be placed on probation. Oh yeah, says the legislature? Not a violation of this law you can’t! Okay, well, we will just do pre-trial diversions and deferred adjudications. Oh yeah, says the legislature? Not for these crimes you can’t. Okay, well, we will just hold them open and formally dismiss them after a time. Not if you want funding for the courts, says the legislature. Same with expungements. Not for this crime, says the legislature. Rinse and repeat. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/32 "2019-06-15T23:52:38Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But that is the heckler’s veto that causes the problem. For the group involved they seem to treat it as if the the hecklers were handing them a megaphone. They got most of their attention because of the counter protest getting violent. > [@](#): > > But then another group gathers and threatens violence against the first group and the police order the first group to leave town. > > The lesson learned: The way to shut someone up is to threaten them. That’s not right. The police also ordered the other group to disperse. Leaving town was more problematic because it involved both outside protesters and residents of the area. Sorting out which was which wasn’t really possible at that point. They did become the point for all of the actual use of force and arrests so there was some balance. One group got shut up and went home to have a beer and high five. The other got shut up with riot batons, tear gas, and hand cuffs. The residents also got their neighborhood torn up. The lesson learned in Toledo is that there’s a real cost associated with shutting someone up by threat instead of mere heckling. It’s still one of the difficult problems. Till someone does something illegal the police are effectively hamstrung. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2019, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/33 "2019-06-17T01:32:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Define “disruptive.” It is not illegal to congregate in groups of 15. If police were to try to disband a group of 15 people (who are not breaking the law, advocating violence or yelling threats) simply because they disagree with their beliefs, then we no longer have freedom of speech. > > I am always dismayed in these threads when people approve of tactics like this, including the one above where we block views of people at a protest. That sounds fun and nice to show those people that we hate how we will marginalize them, but once you do that, the die has been cast and next it will be you who these tactics are used against. I wish people would stop trying to shout down voices. Argue? Absolutely! Attempt to exclude? Absolutely not. The crime is known as “disorderly conduct” and is deliberately ill defined in order to allow cops to define it as they see fit. Cops can just see a group of people, suspect they are up to no good, and come in and tell them to disperse. Since there is no arrest, and little chance at a lawsuit, there is effectively no oversight for this power other than the community’s distaste. If you want to get upset about a freedom being abridged, it would be freedom of assembly, not speech. But cops have a ton of latitude on that. Even as far back as the 1970s protesters were complaining about how freedom of assembly didn’t really mean anything. They could just be declared disruptive and told to disband. It has nothing to do with the content of their speech. The rest of your post is hard to discuss without going into GD argument, so I’ll instead just try to keep it brief. . I would argue your ideology tolerates intolerance, while mine does not. It is the one valid exception, due to its paradoxical nature. And I think my ideology is closer to the real world, as Nazism has been defeated in the marketplace of ideas, but continues to grow in number and power. I’m not afraid of the bogeyman of a legitimate political party being treated the same as the Nazis. It doesn’t pass the ideological test–the ideas are sufficiently different–and it doesn’t pass the real world test: hate speech laws don’t stop political parties in other countries, and anti-discrimination law hasn’t led to people of one political party being banned. They just aren’t the same thing, and should not be treated as such. Some ideas, like “I should be able to kill children” are actually evil. And Nazism is just “I should be able to kill Jews and gay people and Roma and …” with some excuses thrown in. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2019, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/34 "2019-06-17T02:33:34Z")
Lemme see: a few peaceful participants walked in the Pride parade. No shouting, no signs, no trouble. Can we be sure the were not Nazis in the Ernst Röhm mold, just out to lend support and firepower to the movement? Sure, their shirts were black, not brown, but I know how hard it is to find a brown shirt in that size. For an autumn parade they might break out the Hugo Boss. It’s fun to ascribe motives, both negative and positive, to the actions of others as we sit at some remove, but we should not “marry” our assumptions, 'til death us do part. Keep an open mind and look at all the possibilities; that way when the popular motive is wrong we can stand up with pride and say, “I knew that.” ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/35 "2019-06-17T17:20:38Z")
A Nazi march is an explicit threat, made against target groups, like cross-burning or phoning someone anonymously and threatening death. It is foolishness to pretend it is the equivalent of advocacy speech. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2019, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/36 "2019-06-17T22:04:51Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > A Nazi march is an explicit threat, made against target groups, like cross-burning or phoning someone anonymously and threatening death. It is foolishness to pretend it is the equivalent of advocacy speech. This is how freedom dies. Say that this viewpoint, say communism or nazism, is outside the “good” type of speech that we protect. Tomorrow, your speech will not be protected. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/37 "2019-06-19T16:44:24Z")
Freedom dies when people can’t successfully parse meaning. I didn’t say they can’t speak – I did say that marching with Nazi banners (and weapons, nowadays) is an explicit threat. Did freedom die when we outlawed brandishing? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/38 "2019-06-19T17:40:16Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That sounds fun and nice to show those people that we hate how we will marginalize them, but once you do that, the die has been cast and next it will be you who these tactics are used against. These tactics _have_ been used against us. A lot. Conservatives never had a problem with it, until there were enough of us to start using them on you, when all of a sudden you got really concerned with the politics of exclusion. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/39 "2019-06-19T17:50:53Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Freedom dies when people can’t successfully parse meaning. I didn’t say they can’t speak – I did say that marching with Nazi banners (and weapons, nowadays) is an explicit threat. Did freedom die when we outlawed brandishing? Who was brandishing weapons? I get your point. You believe that advocating Nazi ideas is threatening. The existing case law says that you can have threatening ideas. You can advocate for the violent overthrow of the government, you just cannot advocate for imminent lawless action. If the police have evidence that these Nazis are advocating to go get those other people right now, then there is a case. That hasn’t been shown. The mere carrying of weapons, where open carry is legal, is not a threat. Carrying banners are at the absolute core of free speech. You are simply saying that you don’t like them, therefore ban it under the guise of it being some sort of threat. There is no imminent threat in a Nazi parade. But again, if you propose this, don’t be surprised if some future wanna be dictator says that the march for a $15/hr minimum wage is merely a “threat” of socialism which is harmful to our way of life and should be banned. You cannot have it both ways. > [@Miller](#): > > These tactics _have_ been used against us. A lot. Conservatives never had a problem with it, until there were enough of us to start using them on you, when all of a sudden you got really concerned with the politics of exclusion. When? Where? When has a public demonstration of a cause on your side had people jailed or the demonstration banned under some twisting of the true threats doctrine or otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464/40 "2019-06-19T18:47:05Z")
Good Lord, UV, the police have been beating on “left wing” protesters since the fifties. And by “beating,” I mean clubbing, tear gassing, shooting and siccing of the dogs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nazis-at-a-pride-parade-how-exactly/835464.md?page=3)