No, you idiot, that’s the exact opposite of what I said. the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?
I once read somewhere (never actually looked it up) that even at the height of Soviet repression, with millions in gulags etc., the Soviet Union was operating under a constitution which was nominally more protective of individual liberties than the US had.
But it had one little clause that rendered it all moot. “The rights of the individual shall not override the rights of the state” (or something to that effect - I’m paraphrasing from memory).
Competing principles.
I read once about a Supreme Court decision that said that, although we have free speech, speech could be punished which presented a clear and present danger to those nearby.
Competing principles.
Nice system you want; violence against Nazis is good, anyone who disagrees is a Nazi.
What could possibly go wrong?
I challenge you to read the Bible and the Koran and then tell me that Jews, Christians, and Muslims should be treated with dignity and respect. It is already illegal for a man to stand before a crowd and say “Kills that there guy!” and the nazi who does so would be arrested. The Nazis declared my people inhuman and killed 1.5 million of us. However, as vile as I find their beliefs, I will defend to my death their right to hold those beliefs and if done in a nonviolent manner communicate. The 1st Amendment applies to the rights of people you hate as well as those you care.
That’s true. But once you’ve reached the point of “speech in favor of policies that I disprove of is dangerous and should be repressed”, then you’ve rendered the entire principle of free speech moot.
Well your wife does call me Mein Fuhrer when we’re in bed so maybe.
Really? So you think that Germany’s ban on Nazi propaganda means there’s no free speech at all in Germany? It’s not a continuum, it’s an all-or-nothing proposition?
As I said earlier, zealots make me twitch.
Except for a few things. septimus says its admirable that she assaulted him while protesting and Steve1G piles on and says fuck yeah Nazis shouldn’t have constitutional rights to protest because they’re Nazis. This is not about a man and woman having a pushing match in front of a restaurant when they’re both drunk. This is about a group of liberals saying it is awesome to physically attack someone exercising constitutionally-protected rights if you disagree with them. THAT is the issue.
As for your point and the law, Steve1G completely ignored my point in that the law is not unbiased. If a man and pushed a woman protesting something popular in the same way he would have been in jail* so fucking fast it would have set records so the argument “It’s ok she didn’t hurt him.” simply fails.
So the issues are not should she be charged with assault. Personally I think she should since she instigated the physical contact that got him eventually thrown to the ground and kicked. The issues are:
-
Why is it OK to physically assault someone who is exercising their constitutional rights.?
-
If it is OK because they have unpopular views, who get to decide what is unpopular enough to beat on someone who is protesting?
-
Can we really trust the law on this when they have repeatedly shown an unwillingness to distribute justice in an equitable way?
*Or if black, maybe shot.
What I said was “once you’ve reached the point of “speech in favor of policies that I disprove of is dangerous and should be repressed”, then you’ve rendered the entire principle of free speech moot”.
Of course it’s a continuum, but “resulting in my loss of access to health care” seems very clearly at one end. It’s hard to see what distinguishes this from any other disagreement about policy. How about free speech which results in my loss of clean air, or results in me being mugged by criminals, or losing my job, bombed by the Russians etc. etc.? It’s hard to imagine what wouldn’t qualify for an exemption once “resulting in my loss of access to health care” is grounds for suppression. OK, I guess you would still have the right to free speech about whether to declare something National Hot Dog Day, but anything substantive is going to be up for grabs.
You’re misreading me in the same way as Saint Cad, albeit in a less extreme fashion. Again, I am NOT calling for suppressing this speech. I AM NOT CALLING FOR SUPPRESSING THIS SPEECH. Instead, I am saying there are competing principles:
- Ensuring that everyone has access to medical care; and
- Ensuring that folks can freely express their ideas.
I believe that the second idea is more important than the first in this case (with rare exceptions, e.g., fraudulent speech, threatening speech, etc. that would result in my not having access to medical care–but those are complicating circumstances that never need emerge from this parenthetical comment). But that doesn’t mean the first idea is nonexistent.
You’re certainly correct that I don’t understand what you’re saying. If as a practical matter you’re not justifying suppressing speech in the name of achieving policy goals, then of what relevance is the “competing principle”?
If one guy gets annoyed by hearing people talk smack about that Great American Hero Donald Trump and other people feel the need to do this, are we talking about two competing principles in the same sense as you use it (with free speech being “more important in this case”), or is discussion of positions on health care and the like fundamentally different?
No: not wanting to hear certain talk is not a competing principle, or if it is, it’s one I’ll mock. Wanting health care access for all is a competing principle.
Because you think it is admirable to beat on Nazis but not anti-immigration posters. I’m confused
Should I beat on pro-choice or pro-life protestors? Which one gave up their constitutional rights because they disagree with you?
He said “neither” – he wasn’t okay with violence towards either group.
It was very clear to me. What words of his did you find confusing?
That’s nice, that’s very nice. Aren’t you just special, bless your heart.
Meanwhile,
***Third white terrorist arrested in less than a week; White Americans: 3, Muslims: 0 **
Ex-convict and white supremacist Benjamin McDowell, 28, was arrested after buying a handgun and ammunition from an FBI agent for $109.
McDowell had complained on facebook that fellow white supremacists were all talk and no action: “All they wanne (sic) do is stay loaded on drugs the Jews put here to destroy white man and they feast on the drugs. they should be Feasting on the enemy that stole their Heritage and their bloodline” he wrote, also citing Dylan Roof, the white mass murderer sentenced to death for the murder of a group of black churchgoers.
Since President Trump was sworn in, vowing to keep America safe from terrorism, and issuing a travel ban against Muslim countries that was later blocked by the courts, this is the third white American to be investigated for a terrorist plot.
Less than a week previously, William Christopher Gibbs, a self-described “White Racial Loyalist” and member of the Georgia Church Of Creativity, a white-separatist organization founded in 1973, was arrested in Georgia after complaining at a hospital about possible exposure to the deadly toxin ricin.
Ricin has been used by white supremacists before. In 2014, two other Georgia men were sentenced to 10 years in prison for a plot to make the deadly poison ricin and disperse it. During the investigation of the plot, one man was recorded talking about a list of government employees, politicians, corporate leaders and members of the media he thought needed to die.
Finally, about the same time last week that Gibbs was being arrested for investigation over ricin, Mark Charles Barnett (48, Ocala, FL) was delivering 10 homemade bombs to a confidential source in a plot to place explosives in Target stores along the east coast.*
So here’s an idea, maybe instead of hunting down nonexistent Muslim terrorists, maybe the feds should draft up a law, or Exec Order banning Nazi and white supremacists, targeting them as terrorist organizations - which apparently, they ARE. After all, it’s about as constitutional as the religious ban on Muslims.
In the meanwhile fuck off, you stinking Nazi bastard.
But here’s what I don’t understand. According to you the two competing principles are
- Having the right to spout of Naziisms in public.
- Being able to hit a Nazi who is Nazifying
You say #2 was admirable but I dont get how #2 which is a crime outcompetes #1 which is a constitutional right
No, actually, those are not the competing principles. And also, goddamn, #2 DOES NOT OUTCOMPETE #1. Is your monitor broken or something? How big a font do I need to put that in?
You should read the Bible or other religious texts. There are all sorts of advocations for violence. Is the solution to suppress that book or discussion with violence or to apply reason?
Shouldn’t it matter what the argument is not who is making the argument?