Should Antifa violence be condemned?

Not to mention that it exposes some serious logical flaws in your position.

Okay, so when the anti-WBC “Angels” counter-protestors use big screening “wings” to surround the WBC funeral picketers and block their signs from public view, are they stopping the WBC picketers “from doing their thing”? Do their actions count as “shutting down or silencing opposing viewpoints, no matter how odious” and “blocking the free expression of speech”? If so, does that make the “Angels” counter-protestors “bad guys” in this situation?

Because if you claim it doesn’t, then you need to explain why anti-WBC “Angels” legally using screens to conceal the WBC’s legally displayed signs somehow doesn’t count as “blocking the free expression of speech”, but anti-Nazi protestors’ legally shouting and heckling to drown out a legally presented Nazi rally speech does.

Well, it doesn’t appear that you do.


Does one group have a permit for their assembly and does the other side lack one?

As already noted, both groups in each case are specified to be acting legally. That includes having all the official permits legally required for their protest activities.

What if you paid for a ticket?

Oh, Hurricane. I remember you!

Have we asked the liberals whether they can condemn Timothy McAntifa’s mass murder of 169 people in Oklahoma? Sure, that massacre committed by a liberal crusader wasn’t entirely unreasonable, and hardly as egregious as petite Yvette Felarca’s oh-so-very-unreasonable shoving of a Nazi; but you’d think these liberal hypocrites would at least offer a token apology. They got their panties twisted when despicable Heather Heyer threw herself in front of a Nazi car which couldn’t stop in time, but can’t quite bring themselves to admit McAntifa’s mass murder in Oklahoma wasn’t entirely reasonable. Sheeeeesh. How can you pro-Nazis put up with this place?

Drunk posting?

You can start with a dictionary definition:

unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression
unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

We can add to that Karl Popper’s work on tolerance:

Intolerance is the one thing a person who values tolerance should logically rise up against.

As a tolerant person, I’m willing to give neo-Nazis and White Supremecists their freedom of expression, and their full share of social and political rights in all things EXCEPT those where they are advocating a stance to take away someone else’s rights and freedoms.

Your being obtuse. You can extend it from protester to counter counter protestor and so on and it doesn’t change.

Than you get to go.

Several pages ago I mentioned a pending bill in Congress to outlaw (and impose stiff penalties for) wearing masks/disguises at protests (a number of states already have such laws, which date back to the Klan era). The aim is to discourage people from thinking they can get away with violent behavior by hiding behind their masks.

Assuming such a bill does not specifically target Antifa (as the current proposal does) and the criminal penalties are made more reasonable, would posters here support it?

I would not without more explanation of what constitutes a protest.

Maybe it would be better if, instead of criminalizing wearing masks at a protest, they make wearing a mask an aggravating circumstance if the person engages in violence. That would reduce the impact on legitimate protests and increase it on violence. Or make wearing a mask a legitimate basis for a Terry stop or something similar. Of course that would run into problems with burqas and so forth.

It’s just a thought off the top of my head - discuss.


The idea of no-mask laws was to deter participation in Klan rallies in the first place, and thereby prevent violence. Their free speech rights were not violated. They remained as free to express their hatred as ever; they were just required to be identifiable when they did it.

Now, why are you still stuck on the idea that fascistic violence committed by people mingling with antifascists is *by *antifascists?

Do you believe that Eric Clanton committed the attacks he was accused of? Do you believe he’s best described as an antifascist or a fascist? How do you think he self-identifies?

What evidence do you have that the violence was committed by “people mingling with antifascists” rather than self-identified antifa?

What a ridiculous statement.

Would you agree that it’s bad to use violence to do so?

Actually the proposed legislation wouldn’t criminalize mask/disguise-wearing at a protest per se, but targets specific acts:

“(a) In General.–Whoever, whether or not acting under color of
law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures,
oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so
exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 15 years, or both.”

Some might argue that that language about oppressing or intimidating others looks unacceptably broad (having someone next to you at a rally glaring at your protest sign from behind a mask might be construed as “intimidating”, but should they be arrested??). On the other hand, if the protest isn’t occurring on Mardi Gras or Halloween, what’s the need for masking?

As a general principle, I don’t see anything wrong with cracking down on masked thugs who commit violent acts at protests and rallies, and who think they’re more likely to get away with their crimes if they’re disguised. The Klan and Antifa have found that a useful strategy, but it’s long been seen as repulsive in this country.

Anybody can “self-identify” publicly. Doesn’t make it true.

Tell that to all the Chinese who died in the cultural revolution.