Where do you think the police are going to be when this conflict happens?
While I appreciate that the police tend to be right of center, when a armed “civilian” starts shooting his guns at unarmed civilians, the cops are going to come down on the shooters like a ton of bricks, Proud Boy or not.
No matter how tough and well armed a right wing group is, the government is tougher and better armed. The only reason those conflicts include standoffs, or other delays in fighting, is because the government is actively trying to avoid killing the civilians.
I strongly suspect your reverance for free speech and the 1st Amendment depends almost entirely on whose ox is being gored. When the message potentially being censored is one you agree with I’ll bet you view it as an assault on rights and when the message is one you disagree with you’re one of those people who make a clumsy, quasi-legal argument, probably throwing in the obligatory “fire in a crowded theatre” comment while completely oblivious to the inanity and basic logic fail inherent in such arguments.
I’d bet the same goes for judicial decisions too, infallible legal reasoning when you agree with the outcome and a travesty of justice when you don’t. All the while at no point ever knowing what the fuck you’re talking about. And you do know that judicial decisions are overturned all the time right? And you wouldn’t know if this particular judge is correct in interpreting the law at any rate because once again you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.
A few final points to further educate you:
What constitues defamation can change with the times and societal norms. It used to be per se defamation to accuse someone of homosexuality or infidelity. Similarly there is a growing trend for what was once considered opinion such as accusations of racism or sexism to possibly be considered defamatory and actionable because such accusations can be incredibly damaging in modern society. But you wouldn’t know that because once again…
Accusations of racism or sexism or whatever still remain pretty firmly in the subjective opinion realm and rarely, if ever, reach significantly into the realm of objective truth because one can never truly know another person’s thoughts or beliefs. I would think this to be pretty self-evident to any real thinking person but you seem like an arrogant, narcissistic dumb fuck. Let’s face it, it’s not like you’re motivation is altruistic or principled as much as like so many others you’re just looking for a socially acceptable way to attack and denigrate other human beings in a misguided and pathetic attempt to boost your own ego and sense of self-righteousness.
I’ll keep this one short. Under certain circumstances you can certainly be held civilly or even criminally liable for publishing true information. Dumb fuck.
There is more projection in this post than at the local 18 theater cineplex. Also, some people are racist and/or sexist. You are trying to assert that it should be actionable to call that out? Essentially making criticism on those topics illegal? And further up in the post you are crying about free speech and 1st amendment? Try keeping one coherent thought for your entire post next time.
So the kid did what wrong exactly in the interaction with the annoying drummer who got up in his face? All the hubbub on Twitter was because everyone assumed he moved up into that guy’s grill rather than vice versa. But you understand the opposite was actually true, right?
You have been fooled by a false narrative that the longer video showed that the original report was inaccurate, but the original report always said that Phillips approached the kids.
You can choose to stop believing the bullshit. But you probably won’t.
I read the tweets when they came out, and I watched the longer video later. And he didn’t just “approach” them. Technically he made (presumably) unwanted physical contact which could be battery, not that you would ever get a conviction when it is an old man and a strong young man and the contact is slight.
How could you possibly know how valid my suspicions about another person are? And I’m not sure from this posts and others of yours over the years that you have a firm grasp on what constitutes facts or logic. Are you basing your response on actual “facts” such as a history of Lance Turbo acting zealously to defend free speech regardless of the speaker or is this just a knee-jerk emotional response to a percieved attack on an ideological ally?
You see this is primarily a legal issue and I know that he largely doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about because I bothered to actually go to law school and learn this stuff. And like many others on this board and in general he manages to not only be consistently wrong while running their mouth about subjects they don’t understand but be a condescending asshole while doing so.
Let me put this bluntly, if I need advice on dog-grooming you’ll be the first person I think of. Otherwise why don’t you try the proverbial sitting down and shutting the fuck up while the “adults” are talking and you might actually learn something once you admit how much you don’t know.
Can you think of any other choice that he could have made when someone walked up to him? Any other thing he could have done but stand there smirking and staring at him? It takes two to have an awkward confrontation. If you are at a political protest with cameras all around you have to take some responsibility for how you look, regardless of who did what to whom first. You also cannot control how social media reacts to things. And if the media picks up on what is happening on social media what then? Should we ban the news from reporting on anything that happens on social media?
I’m not saying he should have won his lawsuit. Only that he doesn’t deserve to continue to be disparaged over this. Yes, he could have reacted differently, and that would have been fine. What he did was also fine.
Why are so few on the left willing to admit that the drummer was the most obnoxious player in this little drama?
I think the most obnoxious players in the whole drama are people that don’t understand how social media works, which is a lot of people on both sides, and think that there is some way to control how people react to things on twitter, or that people on twitter represent anybody other than themselves like “the left” or “the right”.
8/10 on trolling, but maybe try to bump up the amusement a bit, I didn’t laugh a single time, even at your claim of going to law school, so 2/10 for comedy.
Ah another dumb fuck weighs in. Do you even know what projection means or is it just another term you try and throw around but can’t quite articulate because the subject is beyond your capacity to understand?
The rest of your post shows your inability or unwillingness to grasp the meaning of what I actually wrote. First of all, where did I say racists or sexists don’t exist or can’t be criticized? What I said was accusations of sexism or racism can never reach the level of totally objective truth because these things are beyond the realm of objective truth and fall within subjective truth because they involve human beings who are incapable of total objectivity and otherwise limited in their ability to gather sufficient information by the human condition. Objective truths are things like science and math that are largely independent of the human condition. Attributing any abstract quality to a human being as being an objective truth is like attributing to a rock the quality of “friendly.”
So yes racists and sexists do exist and it’s reprehensible and illogical and should be condemned socially if not legally. Show me where I said anything different? And people can rightly and morally label other people or their opinions as “racist” and “sexist” but that doesn’t make it an objective truth. Subjective truth is all we have for such situations and as long as there are any existing or potential subjective factors to a determination it can never be objective truth. And since Lance Turbo mentioned truth as a defense to defamation, which is accurate, it’s relevant legally and logically because accusations of racism are not subject to the truth defense because it is not a question subject to being objectively determined to be true or false. It is a subjective opinion which is exactly why the judge found the claim to be not legally actionable.
And I did mention the fact that standards for defamation can change with societal standards and what was once potentially protected as pure opinion could become actionable under a claim for defamation. It is factual that in various legal circles that, at least in extreme cases, claims of racism and sexism are being reexamined as possibly defamatory due to the stigma attached to such claims in our society if they prove baseless or vindictive. Show me where I expressed any opinion whether this FACT is a good or bad thing?
And while you’re at it show me where I was crying about free speech and the 1st Amendment. How is accusing Lance Turbo of basing his opinion on free speech according to his biases regarding the speaker in any way crying about free speech? While I am a huge believer in free speech show me how pointing out someone else’s potential logical inconsistencies with regards to a particular subject says anything whatsoever about my own views on the subject? You can’t of course because it doesn’t, and I expressed no such views in that post.
See, I get that you see this as a simple issue and can’t begin to grasp what I actually wrote in my post but that’s not because the issue is in fact simple or my post incoherent, it’s because you’re a fucking simpleton.
