Actually it’s a great idea. Prevents these knuckleheads from starting a brawl.
Better yet, have it in a different state, amIright?:rolleyes:
Yes.
50 yards or meters would be a fair compromise.
That’s a lot less than a quarter-mile…but only 3 seconds by Dodge Charger.
5 yards is within range of bike locks and chains.
So what do you suggest?
If Nazism is so much more objectionable, then clearly Nazism gaining power isn’t going to happen, so banning it is not needed. If it is going to get more power, and the ban serves a purpose, setting the precedent that people in power can ban Judaism or Islam is probably a bad idea, held back only by ‘well, this one was more objectionable’ probably isn’t a good idea.
You can’t legislate away a neo-nazi ideology. But you can legislate to prohibit public displays of neo-nazi ideology. So white supremacists, or other hate groups, applying for a marching permit will not be granted such a permit.
As for showing up like a para-military LARPer to a public protest with improvised weapons, that too can/should be legislated against. Doubly so if you’re showing up armed with a fire arm or knife or various tactical weapons. Tougher to enforce improvised weapons like sign poles or bike locks. But if cops see you using these to assault others, then you are subject to arrest and being charged with armed assault. Won’t be 100% effective in a large demonstration but authorities can do their best to effectively enforce these laws.
In the US you can’t legislate away displays of political symbols. And even if you could, it takes 5 minutes in MS Paint to make a new one.
Ask a German what?
Let me ask the US American this: Why do you with all your free speech ban nude images and tits from public TV and words like “cunt” & “fuck” from public radio?
Since to a German, this makes NO sense at all and looks to me (a German) pretty much like censorship.
That’s a good question.
I said nothing about graphic symbols. Let’s focus on what’s actually being discussed.
I’ve been thinking on this, and I would probably be okay with a codicil to the First Amendment (through the normal Amendment process) banning speech which advocates for the extermination or mass deportation of any racial or religious group.
The reasoning being that such speech dehumanizes and devalues your fellow citizens to such a degree that imminent violence is a likely and foreseeable consequence. The logic here is similar to the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” exception.
“Kill all the ____!” is not an idea. It is not a debatable proposition. It has no value in our society, and only serves to destabilize.
If it were written carefully and had to go through the ratification process, I don’t see this causing much of a slippery slope problem.
Party A has a permit to do what exactly - peacefully protest immigration reform? Or something else?
The kinds of ideas that the white male supremacists made obvious is impossible to ignore and difficult to show restraint toward. They’re not just antiseptic thoughts; they ideas themselves are aggressive and hostile toward anyone who is not white, and probably even many of us who are. Party B may have a legal duty to refrain from violence but they have a moral obligation to confront and condemn that language in the strongest possible terms. Violent conflict might not be right but it’s inevitable in that situation, which is why more intelligent and advanced democracies don’t tolerate this kind of shit.
Such a prohibition would not have banned any of the individuals in Charlottesville from speaking and marching, as they did not advocate for the extermination or mass deportation of any racial or religious group.
Of course, if you expand the definitions of those terms a bit and allow for what they imply, you probably could capture them. But then you’ll also have captured Donald Trump, who advocates for mass deportation of Latinos.
This isn’t just me being pedantic. This is the fundamental problem. You either draw lines that are too narrow to be meaningful or too broad to be targeted against only Nazis.
Let’s assume it’s to engage in vile and hateful rhetoric, to advocate for the re-introduction of slavery, and support for the idea of making Trump dictator for life. Party A has the right under the Constitution to do all those things, and to be given equal protection of the laws against being subjected to violent attack. So does Party B.
Yes, they are. White male supremacists have the right under the Constitution to advocate those ideas, and to be given equal protection of the laws against being subjected to violent attack.
Any group or individual who initiates violence against any group or individual exercising their rights under the Constitution should be arrested and sanctioned. Any leftist who cannot prevent himself from attacking Nazis had better not attend rallies against Nazis.
Regards,
Shodan
Demonstrate by example from history when hate groups pursued their agenda/ideology by exclusively (even primarily) peaceful rhetoric/means.
That is a pretty amazing example of confirmation bias if you’re not kidding, but maybe you’re not. The side that comes armed and looking for a fight that you dislike more is showing up to intimidate, the side you like (or dislike less) that comes armed and looking for a fight is just defending itself. OK, sure. 
The part about minorities isn’t directly relevant to the question of who promotes general brawling at polarized political rallies lately in the US, and separately from the murder committed with a car in this case*. The leftists looking for trouble have more acceptable racial views IMO, if I were forced to choose between them and white supremacists on that issue, but the WS’s were there to cause trouble with leftists, not particularly to attack minorities by any evidence I know. The video clips in media seemed to be predominantly whites fighting one another. And violent leftists in various protests (Seattle, Berkeley etc) have been there to fight, not particularly to defend minorities being physically attacked. And in some of those other cases not even to fight actual white supremacists either, just people they target as ‘extreme right’, or sometimes just to fight the cops. This didn’t all start last Saturday.
*AFAIK one person did that not everyone there on his ‘side’, just as radical leftist groups as a whole didn’t open fire on the Congressmen at the baseball practice.
You’re twisting yourself in pretzels to avoid an obvious truth:
The KKK’s avowed mission is to kill and torture black people.
The BLM’s avowed mission is for black people not to get killed and tortured.
Even if both sides used the same tactics at protests, the “many sides” response is wildly misguided.
What relevance does that have?
Do you believe that Nazis have the right under the Constitution to advocate for vile and hateful ideas?
Regards,
Shodan