Drawing the lines is not that hard. It’s the violence that Antifa weaves into their counter-protests that is at issue in this thread. People should be free to express their viewpoint without getting cracked over the skull with a U-lock, agree or disagree?
So far Antifa has punched exactly ONE Nazi. I would not condone* or *condemn violence vs actual nazis, or KKK, etc.
Antifa has burned a car, smashed dozens of windows, and assaulted:
A guy with a American flag, (who was a liberal protester)
and a few guys with metal bars, once of whom did hang around with some sort of weird alt-right-kinda-nazi-lite idiots.
They also turned a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest into a violent riot.
So, let’s get off this idea that Antifa punches nazis.They don’t.
They did do pretty good in Charlottesville, sure- where there were , indeed, actual armband wearing Nazis and sheet wearing Klansman. Kudos. That’s *once. *
Mostly they are just young angry white male jerks who love to smash things.
Just because we require hateful bullshit to be constitutionally protected from government suppression doesn’t mean that we have any obligation, legal or moral, to support all speech equally in all forums.
The fact that you have a constitutional right to express whatever opinions you want doesn’t mean that anybody else has an obligation to lend or rent you their megaphone so you can make your views more widely heard. YouTube is a commercial enterprise in the business of lending its megaphone, metaphorically speaking, to a wide selection of message-bearers in order that advertisers will pay YouTube money for access to their audiences. YouTube is under no obligation, whether constitutional, legal or moral, to lend their megaphone for the purpose of promoting truly execrable hateful bullshit if they don’t want to.
So you are in fact concurring that, for example, the anti-WBC “Angels” counter-protestors at funerals are “bad guys” when they block from view the WBC protestors’ signs about God hating fags and the deceased burning in hell, etc.? It is a bad thing, according to you, for the “Angels” to be “shutting down or silencing” those “opposing viewpoints” in that way?
The other thing about antifa that I don’t quite get is the whole mask. Generally, nut not always, the hiding of the faces is usually an indicator of bad intent.
Also, generally speaking if someone runs up to me wearing all black, a mask, and anything that might be interpreted as a weapon they are likely to trigger my fight or flight reflex. I doubt I’m alone in this respect. I’m going to assume that this is a calculated effect on their part.
That is enough to make 5hem bad guys. Just because you are claiming to be fighting while you are being an asshole doesn’t mean you aren’t being an asshole.
Now if YouTube were in the cake making business I wonder what your argument would be.
No I am not. And this is not hard. No need to make it hard. If someone is holding a funeral somebody else shouldn’t get to disrupt it. The person that is disrupting it is a bad guy.
If someone, even a Nazi is a speaker at a legal event, the person that tries to stop the Nazi from speaking is a bad guy.
And, I agree that YouTube can do what they want, I just think it’s a bad ethical and business mistake.
Mine would be the same. I would think the cake maker is making a bad ethical and business decision that is his to make.
That last sentence should have been
“Just because you are claiming to be fighting Naziswhile you are being an asshole doesn’t mean you aren’t being an asshole”
Well, what would actually make your attempted analogy accurate would be if YouTube were in the business of letting people write messages on cakes to put in their shop window for passersby to look at, and YouTube then received money from advertisers displaying their ads around the shop window.
In that case, of course, YouTube would still have every right to discriminate with regard to the content of the cake messages that they’re using to attract ad revenue.
If YouTube were merely in the business of selling cakes to paying customers, on the other hand, then of course they should sell their cakes without discriminating against specific categories of (law-abiding) cake buyers.
Looks like you are managing to uphold your double standard by careful juggling of the terms “speech” and “disruption”. If protestors are legally and peacefully holding signs in a public place, near which a funeral happens to be going on, and not trespassing in any way on the property where the funeral is held, how is that “disrupting” the funeral? What, according to you, exempts such a situation from the alleged obligation to tolerate and protect speech such as that on the protestors’ signs?
Sure, the grieving attendees at the funeral won’t like seeing the nearby protestors holding signs saying that their loved one is burning in hell etc., but so what? According to you, we’re supposed to tolerate and protect even speech we don’t like.
Even if the anti-Nazi protestor is using legal means to try to drown out or interfere with the Nazi’s speech? After all, one law-abiding person has just as much right to use speech as another law-abiding person, right? Why are you trying to suppress or restrict the anti-Nazi protestor’s right to speech?
They’re not “anti-Nazi” in practice, as has already been laid out here. They’re assholes that like to beat people up. They’re the Left’s own little toxic-masculinity-in-action display.
Protesting at funerals is constitutionally protected speech. The WBC has every bit as much right to wave their “God Hates Fags” signs at a funeral, as a neo-Nazi has to stand in the town square and explain why Jews should be murdered. So you want to take a second swing at why shouting down the former is okay, and the latter not?
Yeah, I hold no brief whatsoever for assholes illegally beating people up, even if the people the assholes are illegally beating up happen to be Nazis.
What I’m taking issue with here, though, is Scylla’s far broader sweeping assertions to the effect that, AFAICT, even legal actions that have the effect of interfering with the legal speech of others should be considered somehow ethically illegitimate. (Except, apparently, when he decides to portray that legal speech of others by a negative-sounding term like “disruption”, which evidently makes it okay to interfere with it.)
Yeah, ok. I was sort of hoping we wouldn’t get into this, because it’s tiresome.
People have free speech, right? People do not have the right to impinge on the protected free speech of others, right? So, people can’t disrupt a funeral, right? Right. They can’t burst into a private funeral service. They can’t stop the guy from getting buried. Or infringe on the rights of the attendees. Right. Can they lawfully stand on public land 100 yards away and shout and wave signs? Yes. Should they? No.
I understood that the rights of free speech, of protest and counter protest, conflict with each other to some degree. Two groups of protestors shouting slogans at each other from opposite sides of 5he street is ok. One side coming over and smacking the other or chasing them off isn’t. Breaking into an auditorium and disrupting a speech for which you didnt buy tickets isn’t.
You can do your own thing provided you are not stopping others from doing their thing.
Do we really not already understand this? Was it necessary to go over it?
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?