Did it reduce the number of protests, did it put people off protesting, did it prevent their message being heard? Possibly it was intended to prevent them speaking, but how successful was it?
If you really don’t see purposeful state brutalization of peaceful protesters as a real threat to free speech, then we live in such different universes that discussion is pointless.
In short, are you fucking serious? You’re both either delusional or dishonest, if you don’t think this is a real threat to free speech. Fucking nuts.
Only being deplatformed by the Face Book Tube is a threat to freeze peach!
No, it can be. And brutalising peaceful protesters is bad regardless of the effect on free speech. But I wondered how much effect it really had.
I never saw Trump as a big threat to free speech because the press hated him so much. He could only use blunt instruments to get his way, and that’s not very effective in a democracy.
It’s not just Trump. It’s his administration and even his entire party. They either executed, praised, or tolerated this brutalization, for the most part. That’s a pretty significant step towards restricting speech in the long run. Hopefully no more such steps are taken, but this was a big one.
Yes, we know you have problems with reality.
That’s true enough.
RIOTERS!!!1!11!!
I’ll make sure to take up Octopus’s concerns at next week’s local Antifa meeting.
Hmmm, one of these things is not like the other. Sure, peaceful protest is fine, just don’t do it in a city center.
It’s in an interesting view into the mind of someone convinced that every protest is violent. When you’re scared of someone because they are in a city center, I guess everything seems violent to you.
It is well-established octopi have no spines, so, yeah, to your point. When your best defense is to shit ink, well, here we are.
“Why don’t we do it in the road?”
~Max
After I got teargassed by officers in unmarked cars after LEAVING a protest, I didn’t go back. I’m not the only one.
Nice. That’s the sort of thing you expect to happen in third world countries.
There was the American god, Property, to protect!
I was never sure if the heavy-handed response was intended to end the protests or to increase the amount of violence - since the latter seemed to be aiding Trump’s re-election campaign.
Quite obviously the latter - they’re on record as advocating for violence and chaos and openly saying that they thought chaos would help them win.
If you think that is anywhere close to the same thing as misgendering a trans person, you know nothing about this subject and should probably try to learn a little bit before you open your mouth and say something stupid.
Thing is, it shouldn’t take a specific example to see the problem. Especially with someone so big on freedom of speech, and who has herself argued that people being scared of violence infringes on their freedom of speech.
Of course tear gassing people for just speaking will make them afraid to speak. Of course the other violent actions by the state were about trying to shut people up, and thus abridge freedom of speech.
The point is that octopus used to always go on about how freedom of speech was important. He would go on about how violence was not an appropriate response to speech. But when it was his side doing the violence, suddenly it was okay. He used to argue that some people being violent (e.g. some racist assholes who attacked people) shouldn’t mean the freedom of speech of those who weren’t violent should be infringed. But now he’s all about shutting up all the peaceful protesters for the actions of the small number of non-peaceful ones.
Trump broke his principles. He no longer seems to hold to them, because he’d rather pretend the left is the source of all problems. He became an authoritarian, when he used to believe in freedom.
Eh, I’m not sure you can say that. I think you can argue that Trump definitely was fanning the flames with his speech, but his direct actions were suppression tactics, and he’s never seemed to be good enough with strategy to think beyond that.
I think he thought that he could use a show of force by bringing in the feds to show the locals how it should be done. He had them do exactly what he said the state should do.
The guy is authoritarian, and really thinks that you can use sheer force to enact one’s will against those who are against him.
Sometimes you ask a question not because you can’t come up with an answer, but because you want to see what the other person’s answer is. That way you can argue with what they actually believe, and not guess.
In your case, I’m aware of this argument, but it fails on two grounds: (1) It assumes that there is a single authority making the decision of what is acceptable, rather than something decided by a community and (2) it uses the slippery slope fallacy of assuming that, since one thing was found to be unacceptable, another will be. They may not be equally harmful. And, in practice, rules about how people have to behave exist in many forums, and it has not led to more and more things being forbidden.
If the idea had merit, then it wouldn’t just apply to speech. It would be “we can’t make anything illegal, not even murder. because then something I might want to do would be made illegal!”