[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

PsychedelicDiamond:

Eacaraxe:

On the other hand, this never would have happened,

but I don't see too many people shedding tears over that. Sure as shit don't see any Antifa morons protesting any of the basically half the fucking city of Huntsville, AL, named after Wernher von Braun.

So what? If anything it's a mark of shame for the United States that one of their greatest accomplishments wasn't possible without the help of criminals. I'd rather have had Braun in prison or underground than Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon.

For some reason, all I know of that man is from the Tom Leher song that bears his name:

And what is it that put America in the forefront of
the nuclear nations? And what is it that will make it
possible to spend twenty billion dollars of your money
to put some clown on the moon? Well, it was good old
American know how, that's what, as provided by good
old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun!

Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Ha, Nazi, Schmazi" says Wernher von Braun

Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department" say Wernher von Braun

Some have harsh words for this man of renown
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude
Like the widows and cripples in old London town
Who owe their large pension to Wernher von Braun

You too may be a big hero
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero
"In German, oder Englisch, I know how to count down
Und I'm learning Chinese!" says Wernher von Braun

Fuck me this guy would have had a field day with the past two decades if he was still alive.

Lil devils x:

So, you think we should be fighting Nazism the same way we fight radical Islamist terror, huh?

Threatening to come into your home and take you and your sleeping children and strip them of their citizenship and ship them off to a country you have never been before confiscating your property, life and everything you have known is a terroristic threat.

So, Guano Bay, great success and totally justified.

Not that we have to export prisoners, also great success.

Threatening to sterilize you and your family is a terroristic threat. If you resist any of this or defend yourself you will be killed.

Wow. Such success. Much genital torture and castration. Very sodomy.

By even being one, you are engaging in a terroristic threat of others due to their actual platform.

That sure sounds familiar...where I might have heard that before?

Trying to remove rights and citizenship from other citizens is an incitement of violence in itself.

Sure is! We even went in for the bonus round on that one!

ISIS

image

You think the best way to fight a Nazi is to be one?

Eacaraxe:

Lil devils x:
Dinner bell.

So, you think we should be fighting Nazism the same way we fight radical Islamist terror, huh?

Threatening to come into your home and take you and your sleeping children and strip them of their citizenship and ship them off to a country you have never been before confiscating your property, life and everything you have known is a terroristic threat.

So, Guano Bay, great success and totally justified.

Not that we have to export prisoners, also great success.

Threatening to sterilize you and your family is a terroristic threat. If you resist any of this or defend yourself you will be killed.

Wow. Such success. Much genital torture and castration. Very sodomy.

By even being one, you are engaging in a terroristic threat of others due to their actual platform.

That sure sounds familiar...where I might have heard that before?

Trying to remove rights and citizenship from other citizens is an incitement of violence in itself.

Sure is!

ISIS

image

You think the best way to fight a Nazi is to be one?

First of all GITMO should be closed. There is not and never has been an excuse to have it open. We are discussing how they treat US citizens who have participated in terrorist activity, and they do in fact seize their bank accounts and arrest them, as they should because funding terrorism is illegal.

Threatening to come into your home and take you and your sleeping children and strip them of their citizenship and ship them off to a country you have never been before confiscating your property, life and everything you have known is a terroristic threat.

THIS is the white nationalist platform FYI and yes that is a terroristic threat and should be taken as such.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? Trump's illegal treatment of immigrants is not even what we are discussing here. Trump is already in violation of numerous court orders on what he has been doing on the border and why he has his homeland security team evacuating. No, I don't think the best way to fight a Nazi is to be one, Trump should be arrested and charged for his crimes. I am in no way condoning any of that. Are you suggesting that because the members of the US government that should be charged with crimes did something bad that we now have to allow Nazis to do the same? That is absurd. I never suggested they wave due process or strip US citizens of citizenship. They should instead actually pass laws, give them due process and hold them accountable in a court of law. That is not " being a Nazi", it is holding people accountable for threatening citizens because ones right to not be threatened by Nazis in their own nation outweighs the Nazis right to threaten to violently remove people from their own nation.

You act like the ONLY way to enforce the law is to break the law. No, that is far from the case. Law enforcement =\= Waco siege. Law enforcement =\= GITMO. You are taking the worst human rights violations and trying to present that as the only way to enforce the law and that is far from true. Not all US citizens making terroristic threats are sent to GITMO mind you, they are sitting in US prisons.

Yeah, Lil devils x, next you'll be driving on an autobahn and eating sugar. Or not eating sugar, can't remember which one Hitler did.

PsychedelicDiamond:
So what? If anything it's a mark of shame for the United States that one of their greatest accomplishments wasn't possible without the help of criminals. I'd rather have had Braun in prison or underground than Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon.

As an aside, that was one of the reasons that the US had separate competing rocket programs run by different branches of the military. As well as the usual inter-service lack of co-operation, not everyone wanted to be working for a former Nazi. The Soviets (with some less important Nazi scientists they'd caught) did quite well during the early space race in part because of this. So they formed NASA, stuck everyone together and told them to play nice with the Nazis. Probably helps that the V-1s and V-2s only hit European civilians, if US civilians had been targeted (somehow), attitudes would have been different.

Lil devils x:
What exactly are you trying to argue here?

Same thing I've argued from the beginning, you're just not letting it sink in.

You can't fight ideas using the coercive force of the state. That further radicalizes people and makes the very violence you proclaim to stand against more likely to happen, and more destructive when it does. It fosters cyclical violence, and public cries for greater state power and restrictions on basic civil liberties, to stop further violence.

This isn't even a case of whether the ends justify the means. The means prevent the ends.

Trump's illegal treatment of immigrants is not even what we are discussing here.

And considering I'm discussing events that occurred between 2001-2016, with the sole exception of the killing of Nawar al-Awlaki, either Trump borrowed Obama's magical time machine or you're throwing red herrings.

I am in no way condoning any of that...They should instead actually pass laws, give them due process and hold them accountable in a court of law.

Yes you are. Assault and battery are already criminal offenses. Murder is already a criminal offense. Coercion and credible threats already are criminal offenses. Racketeering and providing material support to terrorist organizations are already criminal offenses. So, what more laws and additional means of enforcing them do you suggest, and how do they not run afoul of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments when (at least I believe) the laws we already have run afoul of them?

No, what you want to do is regulate speech, not hold the government accountable for enforcing laws that already exist.

You act like the ONLY way to enforce the law is to break the law. No, that is far from the case.

No, I'm acting like demagogues, given near-unlimited power and little if any oversight or accountability, have an overwhelming tendency towards violating human rights. This should be quite obvious, considering we're discussing the definitive case example in the entirety of human history, of what happens when demagogues are given unlimited power, no oversight, and no accountability.

Law enforcement =\= Waco siege.

I actually agree. Federal law enforcement decided to cowboy up like it was a fuckin' John Wayne movie, enabled by a Presidential administration more worried about political blowback than faithful execution of the law, with precious little oversight or accountability.

Law enforcement =\= GITMO.

I actually agree. A neoconservative Presidential administration was given carte blanche in the wake of a terror attack it allowed to happen, and committed to the most sweeping set of erosions to fundamental civil liberties in American history, and the most egregious war crimes since Vietnam. All to thunderous applause on the part of the American people.

Are you failing to see a trend here, or are you just conveniently ignoring it?

Not all US citizens making terroristic threats are sent to GITMO mind you, they are sitting in US prisons.

Yeah, not all do. Some are hit by drones, and others get SEAL Team Six sent to shoot them.

PsychedelicDiamond:

So what? If anything it's a mark of shame for the United States that one of their greatest accomplishments wasn't possible without the help of criminals. I'd rather have had Braun in prison or underground than Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon.

An even greater shame is that a ton of Nazi officials that weren't tried in Nuremberg were quickly put back to work (some times in the same position) in the BRD to administrate the, now democratic, republic. Similar things took place in a lot of private German firms too, were everyone sort of just forgot that the owners and board had been enthusiastically helping the Nazis (and often had been Nazis) a few years prior. Just like pretty much all surviving higher officers of the Wehrmacht were exonerated a few years later when the Bundeswehr was formed so that the Western Allies could have a bulwark against the USSR. The great shame of the Western Allies is that they had no trouble exonerating Nazis for realpolitik gain in less time then it took to defeat Nazi Germany in WW2.

Gethsemani:
An even greater shame is that a ton of Nazi officials that weren't tried in Nuremberg were quickly put back to work (some times in the same position) in the GDR to administrate the, now democratic, republic. Similar things took place in a lot of private German firms too, were everyone sort of just forgot that the owners and board had been enthusiastically helping the Nazis (and often had been Nazis) a few years prior. Just like pretty much all surviving higher officers of the Wehrmacht were exonerated a few years later when the Bundeswehr was formed so that the Western Allies could have a bulwark against the USSR. The great shame of the Western Allies is that they had no trouble exonerating Nazis for realpolitik gain in less time then it took to defeat Nazi Germany in WW2.

Hey, the men responsible for much of this worked very hard to ensure crypto-fascism had a welcome place in the upper echelons of American and NATO governance during the Cold War, thank you very much. Names on airports, and the Presidential election of the son and grandson of a Nazi financier and war profiteer, is the least a thankful nation could do.

Gethsemani:

PsychedelicDiamond:

So what? If anything it's a mark of shame for the United States that one of their greatest accomplishments wasn't possible without the help of criminals. I'd rather have had Braun in prison or underground than Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon.

An even greater shame is that a ton of Nazi officials that weren't tried in Nuremberg were quickly put back to work (some times in the same position) in the GDR to administrate the, now democratic, republic.

I think you mean in the BRD. The GDR was East Germany. Which was somewhat more thorough in purging former Nazis, though, by all means, far from perfect.

Eacaraxe:

Lil devils x:
What exactly are you trying to argue here?

Same thing I've argued from the beginning, you're just not letting it sink in.

You can't fight ideas using the coercive force of the state. That further radicalizes people and makes the very violence you proclaim to stand against more likely to happen, and more destructive when it does. It fosters cyclical violence, and public cries for greater state power and restrictions on basic civil liberties, to stop further violence.

This isn't even a case of whether the ends justify the means. The means prevent the ends.

Trump's illegal treatment of immigrants is not even what we are discussing here.

And considering I'm discussing events that occurred between 2001-2016, with the sole exception of the killing of Nawar al-Awlaki, either Trump borrowed Obama's magical time machine or you're throwing red herrings.

I am in no way condoning any of that...They should instead actually pass laws, give them due process and hold them accountable in a court of law.

Yes you are. Assault and battery are already criminal offenses. Murder is already a criminal offense. Coercion and credible threats already are criminal offenses. Racketeering and providing material support to terrorist organizations are already criminal offenses. So, what more laws and additional means of enforcing them do you suggest, and how do they not run afoul of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments when (at least I believe) the laws we already have run afoul of them?

No, what you want to do is regulate speech, not hold the government accountable for enforcing laws that already exist.

You act like the ONLY way to enforce the law is to break the law. No, that is far from the case.

No, I'm acting like demagogues, given near-unlimited power and little if any oversight or accountability, have an overwhelming tendency towards violating human rights. This should be quite obvious, considering we're discussing the definitive case example in the entirety of human history, of what happens when demagogues are given unlimited power, no oversight, and no accountability.

Law enforcement =\= Waco siege.

I actually agree. Federal law enforcement decided to cowboy up like it was a fuckin' John Wayne movie, enabled by a Presidential administration more worried about political blowback than faithful execution of the law, with precious little oversight or accountability.

Law enforcement =\= GITMO.

I actually agree. A neoconservative Presidential administration was given carte blanche in the wake of a terror attack it allowed to happen, and committed to the most sweeping set of erosions to fundamental civil liberties in American history, and the most egregious war crimes since Vietnam. All to thunderous applause on the part of the American people.

Are you failing to see a trend here, or are you just conveniently ignoring it?

Not all US citizens making terroristic threats are sent to GITMO mind you, they are sitting in US prisons.

Yeah, not all do. Some are hit by drones, and others get SEAL Team Six sent to shoot them.

We are not just fighting ideas, we are fighting actions. If you distribute child porn or try to have sex with a child, you can be arrested. If you distribute Nazi propaganda or try to promote white nationalism you should be arrested. Why do you think that should be treated any different? Both are dangerous to others and should be treated as such. If you simply think racist thoughts that isn't harming anyone. However, the second you go from simply thinking them to promoting enacting violence against other races, it ceases to be just an idea but then becomes an action to cause harm to others. I may think about kicking the developer who implemented a stupid thing in the game I like to play , but the second I stop just thinking it and try to encourage others to take action to cause them harm it ceases to be just an idea but it is instead a threat that should be taken seriously. Thinking about yelling fire in a theater is not a crime, but yelling fire in a theater is a crime. That is how this works and treating white nationalism the same way does not in any way suddenly mean we have to throw everyone in GITMO to enforce it.

You brought up Trumps treatment of immigrants so I asked what that has to do with any of this. In addition, I never said that Obama and Bush didn't break the law, of course they did and I ranted about that on these very forums about that as well. But as I said earlier, what does that have to do with any of this?

Yes you are. Assault and battery are already criminal offenses. Murder is already a criminal offense. Coercion and credible threats already are criminal offenses. Racketeering and providing material support to terrorist organizations are already criminal offenses. So, what more laws and additional means of enforcing them do you suggest, and how do they not run afoul of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments when (at least I believe) the laws we already have run afoul of them?
No, what you want to do is regulate speech, not hold the government accountable for enforcing laws that already exist.

No, I am not. They do have existing laws, they just need to make sure they designate white nationalism as a terrorist threat, as is long overdue and enforce the law. They need to make additional laws to ensure that it is no longer considered protected speech and have it clarified as being included as both incitement of violence, no different than yelling fire in a theater and included as restricted under the fighting words doctrine. Just as they deemed it illegal to yell "whore" and "jezebel" at women attending the beach, they should consider this as just as damaging to society to chant "Jews will not replace us" while marching down the street with torches. There really is no excuse for this not already have been done. Their party platform itself is a threat and incitement of violence. Mind you the fighting words doctrine was deemed not in violation of the first amendment, even though the pastor who was yelling jezebel at the woman was protesting as well at the time. I never once suggested they wave their right to due process, you did, and I have no idea why you think they would have excessive bail.. your imagination is running away I think. We already regulate speech under the fighting words doctrine, we just need to make sure this is specifically included as well. It is no different than the other ways we have already regulated speech for a very long time now, and no we did not need GITMO in order to do so. I knew a guy who actually was stupid enough to yell bomb in the Atlanta airport a couple of months after the 1996 bomb. He was knocked down, maced and beaten and to this day, he still thinks he deserved every bit of it for being an arse. Just because these people do not yet realize they are making arses of themselves does not mean they are justified in their behavior.

No one is talking about demagogues, but you. Yelling "jezebel" at women at a beach is less harmful to society than threatening to exterminate people from your nation simply for existing, yet yelling jezebel at women is illegal, we need to update this law to directly address this very serious issue, as in this day, threatening irrational racial violence upon people simply for existing is far more dangerous than yelling fire in a theater and jezebel at the beach. It is more extreme to not do so than it is to finally properly address the issue.

We are talking about US citizens on US soil. I am not aware of any Us citizens on US soil that are being hit by drones or being shot by seal team six. War zones and what happens in other nations is not what is currently being discussed here, so no point talking about it. BTW, I was quite vocal about my opposition to Obama's executive order that allowed the US Military to enter both allied and non allied nations without their knowledge or consent and without asking for presidential approval to do so that we had an ambassador quit over but also that allowed him to go after Bin Laden. I still think that was an overreach of power, as the end does not necessarily justify the means. That is why I am not suggest8ing any extreme means, just the existing way we already enforce laws. We did not just say " oh well there are too many child brides in the US to enforce the law so we should just turn a blind eye" now did we? of course not, and we should not do so here as well.
Nazis and white nationalist have already made it plenty clear throughout our history and current case logs they are a credible threat of violence and we are overdue acting on it already. The only reason this has not happened yet is that racism in the US was acceptable and much of the general population did not consider the constitution to apply to other races. This has now changed and it is well past time the US start protecting all of it's people, not just the white ones.

The US government has a duty to protect all it's citizens from all threats both foreign and domestic and is failing to do so by allowing white nationalists to threaten all who they do not deem " pure enough" for their ethnostate. The US has a constitutional obligation to protect it's non white citizens from threats of violence and needs to step up and make sure they have it. By failing to protect them they are denying US citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not looking out for their general welfare by forcing them to live under threats of violence that no one should be forced to endure.

PsychedelicDiamond:

I think you mean in the BRD. The GDR was East Germany. Which was somewhat more thorough in purging former Nazis, though, by all means, far from perfect.

You are right, of course.

Lil devils x:
Snip.

Once again, if you believe current law is insufficient to end right-wing violence in this country, there's only one way to go from here. And indeed, considering the current state of anti-terrorism law and that we already vastly exceed the enumerated boundaries of the Constitution in this regard, anything but advocacy for a roll-back is advocacy for civil liberties and rights violations.

Now, that said, since you deemed fit to bring up the fighting words and clear and present danger doctrines in the context of my dire warnings, shall we discuss it since apparently points I made three pages ago were not clear or vociferous enough?

The clear and present danger standard was first crafted in Schenck, a case wherein pamphleteering in protest of American involvement in WWI and the draft was ruled unprotected speech. Schenck being the origin of Holmes' infamous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" quip. That case was joined by Debs v. US, wherein Eugene V. Debs was arrested and convicted of espionage for...protesting American involvement in WWI and the draft.

The end goal being to persecute, oppress, and imprison critics and dissidents of the US government, most notably socialists and unionists, which would continue straight through to the second Red Scare (see Whitney and Yates). Something Holmes himself would realize in time for him to reverse his earlier position, in Abrams, but alas the precedent was already set and Abrams ignored.

Of course, I'd be remiss in failing to mention the earlier bad tendency standard, established in Patterson v. Colorado when a newspaper printed accusations Colorado state judges illegally overturned election results as a result of bribery. Once again, a weak standard of speech protection was employed to suppress criticism of the government.

The fighting words doctrine was first crafted in Chaplinsky, a case wherein a Jehovah's Witness was speaking publicly in criticism of organized religion and arrested for disturbing the peace. The disturbance? men who had gathered in response to Chaplinsky's speech were physically assaulting him, and not arrested. Chaplinsky, unhappy about this, cussed out the cop.

The doctrine was cut from whole cloth to justify the arrest of a member of a religious minority, when members of a majority religion assaulted him for speaking peacefully and publicly in criticism of the majority religion. Sit down and think about that before advocating the standard.

The doctrine would be weakened (for good fucking reason) in Street v. New York (one of the flag burning cases) where it was ruled offensiveness could not elevate speech to the status of fighting words. In Cohen, it was weakened further when it was ruled speech not containing personal epithets could not be construed as fighting words. Texas v. Johnson was the second to last nail in the coffin, when it ruled "fighting words" were only direct, personal insults and/or direct invitations to physical violence. The doctrine became effectively defunct in RAV v. St. Paul when it was ruled viewpoint- and content-discriminatory laws forbidding inflammatory speech (even symbolic) run afoul of the 14th Amendment.

The law of the land is currently the imminent lawless action standard of Brandenburg, which has withstood the test of war protest, political affiliation, and symbolic speech. The issue you have to overcome, is the century-long history and jurisprudence of lax speech protection being exploited by the government for the exact end you claim to oppose: persecution of people on the basis of political and religious affiliation, and suppressing criticism of the government. If "you" give government the power to regulate speech on the basis of content and viewpoint, "you" do not get to decide what speech is curtailed; the state does, and the state will act in its interests (or rather, the interests of those in power).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but let's assume the US had hate speech laws. Whose speech, under the Trump administration, do you believe would be defined as hateful?

Eacaraxe:

Lil devils x:
Snip.

Once again, if you believe current law is insufficient to end right-wing violence in this country, there's only one way to go from here. And indeed, considering the current state of anti-terrorism law and that we already vastly exceed the enumerated boundaries of the Constitution in this regard, anything but advocacy for a roll-back is advocacy for civil liberties and rights violations.

Now, that said, since you deemed fit to bring up the fighting words and clear and present danger doctrines in the context of my dire warnings, shall we discuss it since apparently points I made three pages ago were not clear or vociferous enough?

The clear and present danger standard was first crafted in Schenck, a case wherein pamphleteering in protest of American involvement in WWI and the draft was ruled unprotected speech. Schenck being the origin of Holmes' infamous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" quip. That case was joined by Debs v. US, wherein Eugene V. Debs was arrested and convicted of espionage for...protesting American involvement in WWI and the draft.

The end goal being to persecute, oppress, and imprison critics and dissidents of the US government, most notably socialists and unionists, which would continue straight through to the second Red Scare (see Whitney and Yates). Something Holmes himself would realize in time for him to reverse his earlier position, in Abrams, but alas the precedent was already set and Abrams ignored.

Of course, I'd be remiss in failing to mention the earlier bad tendency standard, established in Patterson v. Colorado when a newspaper printed accusations Colorado state judges illegally overturned election results as a result of bribery. Once again, a weak standard of speech protection was employed to suppress criticism of the government.

The fighting words doctrine was first crafted in Chaplinsky, a case wherein a Jehovah's Witness was speaking publicly in criticism of organized religion and arrested for disturbing the peace. The disturbance? men who had gathered in response to Chaplinsky's speech were physically assaulting him, and not arrested. Chaplinsky, unhappy about this, cussed out the cop.

The doctrine was cut from whole cloth to justify the arrest of a member of a religious minority, when members of a majority religion assaulted him for speaking peacefully and publicly in criticism of the majority religion. Sit down and think about that before advocating the standard.

The doctrine would be weakened (for good fucking reason) in Street v. New York (one of the flag burning cases) where it was ruled offensiveness could not elevate speech to the status of fighting words. In Cohen, it was weakened further when it was ruled speech not containing personal epithets could not be construed as fighting words. Texas v. Johnson was the second to last nail in the coffin, when it ruled "fighting words" were only direct, personal insults and/or direct invitations to physical violence. The doctrine became effectively defunct in RAV v. St. Paul when it was ruled viewpoint- and content-discriminatory laws forbidding inflammatory speech (even symbolic) run afoul of the 14th Amendment.

The law of the land is currently the imminent lawless action standard of Brandenburg, which has withstood the test of war protest, political affiliation, and symbolic speech. The issue you have to overcome, is the century-long history and jurisprudence of lax speech protection being exploited by the government for the exact end you claim to oppose: persecution of people on the basis of political and religious affiliation, and suppressing criticism of the government. If "you" give government the power to regulate speech on the basis of content and viewpoint, "you" do not get to decide what speech is curtailed; the state does, and the state will act in its interests (or rather, the interests of those in power).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but let's assume the US had hate speech laws. Whose speech, under the Trump administration, do you believe would be defined as hateful?

I do not expect this to happen under the Trump administration, I expect him at some point to be brought up on numerous charges however. In addition, it is not like whatever administration is in office will get to define hate speech laws on a whim, they make the law and accurately define it as other nations have done and it is applied the same regardless of administration in office. They would have to go through congress and the supreme court to change it on a whim, The president is not even allowed to write the laws in the first place let alone define them. I am sure after the Trump fiasco, they will also be passing further legislation to prevent the President from doing quite a bit of what he has done, so using him as an example would only be an example of WHY they deemed this further legislation and restriction of powers necessary. You can be sure there will be much done later as a result of Trump's current abuse of power.

Again, I disagree that the promotion of the creation of a white ethnostate is a legitimate political platform and to publicly promote such presents a clear and present danger as we have a very long history and a current case backlog to prove it is such. It is a direct incitement of violence upon all those deemed unpure because their actual intention of promoting such is to cause direct harm to people. To promote such IS a direct invitation to violence as that is their actual platform. There is no way around the facts of what they are literally promoting here. They are directly calling for mass violence against non whites in their actual platform, so yes it should more than meet the criteria. If people carryout the actual orders set forth by the Nazis and other white nationalists yes, immediate mass violence would take place and they have shown repeatedly this to be the case with the numerous deaths and injuries that have already taken place due to this call to action. Their marches and propaganda are a direct and immediate incitement of violence and should be treated as such. I am only calling for them to make sure that specifically is clear since we have a long racist history in the US that has prevented it from being made clear sooner.

The fighting words doctrine has had many rulings going back and forth and was left up to the discretion of the judges for the most part. We have had numerous ruling that racial slurs were not protected speech under the fighting words doctrine and it is extremely common for nazis and white nationalists to use such insults and slurs on a daily basis towards other people. We should further clarify the doctrine and yes, ideally we would amend the constitution to clarify this further. We need to strengthen the fighting words doctrine, to further cover and clarify, not reduce it. Of course we have to address the racist in congress and the white house in order to do this first, but with recent events the fallout from allowing this racist extremist to get out of control very well may be the nudge needed to make that happen once the gerymandered districts are redrawn and the GOP gets crushed in elections. It isn't going to be long before the GOP is too far outnumbered to be able to maintain their seats once they lose their project redmap. It is just a matter of time before we can finally get enough votes to actually solve the problem once and for all. Once we actually get the racism out of government, we should be able to pass this easily.

This is no more persecution of people for political or religious beliefs than it is to arrest people for child bride trafficking. Both are abusive and harmful to society and should be outlawed. In both cases harm is inflicted upon people. In both cases we have victims whose rights are being violated by allowing these harmful actions to continue and in both cases the government would be failing in their constitutional duty to protect the people from enemies foreign and domestic if they allowed the actions of child molesters and white nationalists to continue. Child bride trafficking actually has more of a religious argument than white nationalism, but you don't see that holding up now do you?

I see the problem you are having is that you do not fully understand that they are actually causing harm to people and infringing upon the rights of others through their actions denying the victims their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have an extremely long list of people who have been harmed by this currently btw, it isn't like this is some victimless crime here. The victims rights take priority over the will of white nationalists to inflict harm upon them.

EDIT: Though you know it is odd that you think the government can be trusted with Nuclear reactors and waste but not with properly implementing and enforcing ethnostate promotion regulations. I would think arresting Nazis is a much simpler task.

Lil devils x:
-snip-

The thing is, I don't think you quite grasp just how strong a precedent that Brandenburg v. Ohio is, and the precedents that have come from there. I'll remind you that the Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps by a margin of 8-1, and Alito's dissent was the most narrowly drawn one I've ever seen (and more a chance to sound off about his opinion of the WBC).

In part, you remind me of those minarchist conservative/libertarians who still want to argue against the constitutionality of the New Deal, and are convinced that if they can get the Supreme Court to change its mind on the commerce clause they can do so. The problem is, the courts aren't going to play along, and the prospect of a constitutional amendment hovers roughly around zero percent. I would have a better chance of getting a constitutional amendment that turns America into a monarchy.

You can have your opinion about hate speech, of course. You can use your platform to advocate for such amendments. Just as I can use mine to ridicule the concept and point out that you're not really crafting a legal argument, you're crafting one using legal terminology in a disjointed manner.

I see the problem you are having is that you do not fully understand that they are actually causing harm to people and infringing upon the rights of others through their actions denying the victims their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Courts have considered your argument and found it to be pretty much entirely without merit. It was found to be without merit in Brandenburg, Snyder and also in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, in which a Swastika, displayed by literal Nazis, was ruled to not be fighting words?

The display of the swastika, as offensive to the principles of a free nation as the memories it recalls may be, is symbolic political speech intended to convey to the public the beliefs of those who display it. It does not, in our opinion, fall within the definition of "fighting words," and that doctrine cannot be used here to overcome the heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of a prior restraint.

Nor can we find that the swastika, while not representing fighting words, is nevertheless so offensive and peace threatening to the public that its display can be enjoined. We do not doubt that the sight of this symbol is abhorrent to the Jewish citizens of Skokie, and that the survivors of the Nazi persecutions, tormented by their recollections, may have strong feelings regarding its display. Yet it is entirely clear that this factor does not justify enjoining defendants' speech.

Emphasis mine

The fighting words doctrine is the Lupus of court doctrines: If you think it applies, it almost certanly does not.

Additionally, you do understand the phrase in question (about life and liberty) is in the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution? And that even if it were, it would only bind the government and not private citizens? I've seen you use the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" in reference to hate speech despite the fact that 1: Again, that only applies to the government and 2: it isn't a punishment imposed by the state and 3: you are using a phrase outside its correct legal context as a series of buzzwords. You might as well talk about fire in a crowded theater, despite the underlying facts of the case, and that the major point of it was curtailed strongly by Brandenburg

Furthermore, to get a constitutional amendment, you would need 38 states agreeing, and no matter how demographics change in the USA, I highly doubt you'll be able to get enough states on board.

Further reading, and listening, can be found at the following links.
One
Two
Three

CM156:

Lil devils x:
-snip-

The thing is, I don't think you quite grasp just how strong a precedent that Brandenburg v. Ohio is, and the precedents that have come from there. I'll remind you that the Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps by a margin of 8-1, and Alito's dissent was the most narrowly drawn one I've ever seen (and more a chance to sound off about his opinion of the WBC).

In part, you remind me of those minarchist conservative/libertarians who still want to argue against the constitutionality of the New Deal, and are convinced that if they can get the Supreme Court to change its mind on the commerce clause they can do so. The problem is, the courts aren't going to play along, and the prospect of a constitutional amendment hovers roughly around zero percent. I would have a better chance of getting a constitutional amendment that turns America into a monarchy.

You can have your opinion about hate speech, of course. You can use your platform to advocate for such amendments. Just as I can use mine to ridicule the concept and point out that you're not really crafting a legal argument, you're crafting one using legal terminology in a disjointed manner.

I see the problem you are having is that you do not fully understand that they are actually causing harm to people and infringing upon the rights of others through their actions denying the victims their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Courts have considered your argument and found it to be pretty much entirely without merit. It was found to be without merit in Brandenburg, Snyder and also in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, in which a Swastika, displayed by literal Nazis, was ruled to not be fighting words?

The display of the swastika, as offensive to the principles of a free nation as the memories it recalls may be, is symbolic political speech intended to convey to the public the beliefs of those who display it. It does not, in our opinion, fall within the definition of "fighting words," and that doctrine cannot be used here to overcome the heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of a prior restraint.

Nor can we find that the swastika, while not representing fighting words, is nevertheless so offensive and peace threatening to the public that its display can be enjoined. We do not doubt that the sight of this symbol is abhorrent to the Jewish citizens of Skokie, and that the survivors of the Nazi persecutions, tormented by their recollections, may have strong feelings regarding its display. Yet it is entirely clear that this factor does not justify enjoining defendants' speech.

Emphasis mine

The fighting words doctrine is the Lupus of court doctrines: If you think it applies, it almost certanly does not.

Additionally, you do understand the phrase in question (about life and liberty) is in the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution? And that even if it were, it would only bind the government and not private citizens? I've seen you use the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" in reference to hate speech despite the fact that 1: Again, that only applies to the government and 2: it isn't a punishment imposed by the state and 3: you are using a phrase outside its correct legal context as a series of buzzwords. You might as well talk about fire in a crowded theater, despite the underlying facts of the case, and that the major point of it was curtailed strongly by Brandenburg

Furthermore, to get a constitutional amendment, you would need 38 states agreeing, and no matter how demographics change in the USA, I highly doubt you'll be able to get enough states on board.

Further reading, and listening, can be found at the following links.
One
Two
Three

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968 during rampant widespread violent racism backlash against civil rights for minorities) The ruling is outdated and not only should the fighting words doctrine be strengthened, clarified and accurately defined, we really need to amend the constitution to address this issue to where stacking benches and judges flavor of the day cannot just ignore it on a whim anymore. Hell they ruled yelling racial slurs at people was not protected speech in 2010. The history of the fighting words doctrine is not consistent on this at all. Yes, I am actually calling to amend the constitution. Yes I understand how difficult that is. Yes, I understand that we have to flush the current makeup of congress to do so, but I have a feeling that flush very well could be coming due to the current abuses of power we are witnessing now. Yes, I also understand to get anything past the current stacked benches, the democrats will have to increase the number of judges and this has already been discussed as the plan when they regain control.

Actually I am not expecting the current supreme court to change their minds, thus why you go over their heads and amend the constitution once you flush out the racists. Yes I know that means having 2/3rds of congress. I think that what we are currently witnessing now may very well make that a reality in the future due to how bad this has been. I see this as something that can happen in time we just need to start stacking up the support for it now so it can happen when the time comes.

Of course they ruled in favor of Nazis during the 60's and 70's, it was still very socially acceptable for KKK to be judges and police officers and we need to change that. That is part of the problem. We have all these racist old men calling the shots who think this is still okay and acceptable and this is what needs to be changed long term. I expect people who grew up thinking this was okay to continue to think it is okay. I am saying that needs to change or we will just continue to allow history to repeat itself because they refuse to learn from it.

The US and the world is changing and we need to keep our laws updated so the US is not just viewed as that redneck hillbilly cousin of civilized nations. Racism in the US is long past due needing to be adequately addressed. It really is absurd that we are still dealing with all this backwards BS when we really should be focusing on building a future. TBH this really should be a non issue by this point, I have no idea why people want to hold on to this awfulness as much as they do instead of build a better world for everyone living in it. We have so many more problems to deal with, dealing with ignorant racist should not have to be one of them anymore but it is because nothing is being done to curb it and people are stupid enough to lap it up every time it comes around again.

This can be changed, luckily I don't think most whites support racism anymore, and in about 20 years or so whites will be the minority in the US, though due to the lack of support among whites already for white nationalists, we will not have to wait that long for results thus quashing white nationalism for good. They can only gerrymander so much before it become futile. The demographics are changing, it is just a matter of time.

Lil devils x:
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968 during rampant widespread violent racism backlash against civil rights for minorities) The ruling is outdated and not only should the fighting words doctrine be strengthened, clarified and accurately defined, we really need to amend the constitution to address this issue to where stacking benches and judges flavor of the day cannot just ignore it on a whim anymore.

And they've continued to affirm it in modern decisions. Here's a hint: "It's outdated" is a social argument rather than a legal one. Fighting words has been chipped away repeatedly. Trying to save it and bring it back to restrain speech that has been protected for decades is like trying to hold back a tidal wave with nothing but a single sandbag.

Hell they ruled yelling racial slurs at people was not protected speech in 2010.

What ruling are you citing?

Actually I am not expecting the current supreme court to change their minds, thus why you go over their heads and amend the constitution once you flush out the racists. Yes I know that means having 2/3rds of congress. I think that what we are currently witnessing now may very well make that a reality in the future due to how bad this has been. I see this as something that can happen in time we just need to start stacking up the support for it now so it can happen when the time comes.

You'd also have to deal with tons of civil rights groups like the ACLU who fought for the precedents in these cases. Despite their hesitancy, they've still continued to support strong free speech, and the idea is very well ingrained in American jurisprudence.

The US and the world is changing and we need to keep our laws updated so the US is not just viewed as that redneck hillbilly cousin of civilized nations.

Hey, can you give me a definition of what a "civilized nation" is? Or a guideline on how to determine it? And what makes them "civilized" as opposed to barbarous, apparently?

Also, if we want to be in line with the rest of the world, we should put more federal restriction on abortion, because after the first trimester, most European countries strongly restrict the procedure to only health reasons. Not all, but a good number. This is the problem with trying to use foreign law for domestic issues: Those in favor of it only cite foreign laws when it aligns with their ideas, but ignore it when the very same countries have precedents that are strongly against something they want.

We have so many more problems to deal with, dealing with ignorant racist should not have to be one of them anymore but it is because nothing is being done to curb it and people are stupid enough to lap it up every time it comes around again.

Yes, because you can stop people from holding bad idea through the use of state force. That always works and never backfires in any way. Especially not in countries with long free speech traditions and numerous organizations that have spent decades fighting for this legal precedent. Simply put, this is an attempt to close the barn door after the horse is already out. You can continue to hold this opinion. But the legal field will not bend to suit your opinion. Again, you can hold your beliefs all you want, just like I can ridicule them and stand here with the "try and stop me" doctrine regarding my rights (speech, guns, religion, etc). I'm willing to bet money now that I'll be proven right over time.

CM156:

Lil devils x:
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968 during rampant widespread violent racism backlash against civil rights for minorities) The ruling is outdated and not only should the fighting words doctrine be strengthened, clarified and accurately defined, we really need to amend the constitution to address this issue to where stacking benches and judges flavor of the day cannot just ignore it on a whim anymore.

And they've continued to affirm it in modern decisions. Here's a hint: "It's outdated" is a social argument rather than a legal one. Fighting words has been chipped away repeatedly. Trying to save it and bring it back to restrain speech that has been protected for decades is like trying to hold back a tidal wave with nothing but a single sandbag.

Hell they ruled yelling racial slurs at people was not protected speech in 2010.

What ruling are you citing?

Actually I am not expecting the current supreme court to change their minds, thus why you go over their heads and amend the constitution once you flush out the racists. Yes I know that means having 2/3rds of congress. I think that what we are currently witnessing now may very well make that a reality in the future due to how bad this has been. I see this as something that can happen in time we just need to start stacking up the support for it now so it can happen when the time comes.

You'd also have to deal with tons of civil rights groups like the ACLU who fought for the precedents in these cases. Despite their hesitancy, they've still continued to support strong free speech, and the idea is very well ingrained in American jurisprudence.

The US and the world is changing and we need to keep our laws updated so the US is not just viewed as that redneck hillbilly cousin of civilized nations.

Hey, can you give me a definition of what a "civilized nation" is? Or a guideline on how to determine it? And what makes them "civilized" as opposed to barbarous, apparently?

Also, if we want to be in line with the rest of the world, we should put more federal restriction on abortion, because after the first trimester, most European countries strongly restrict the procedure to only health reasons. Not all, but a good number. This is the problem with trying to use foreign law for domestic issues: Those in favor of it only cite foreign laws when it aligns with their ideas, but ignore it when the very same countries have precedents that are strongly against something they want.

We have so many more problems to deal with, dealing with ignorant racist should not have to be one of them anymore but it is because nothing is being done to curb it and people are stupid enough to lap it up every time it comes around again.

Yes, because you can stop people from holding bad idea through the use of state force. That always works and never backfires in any way. Especially not in countries with long free speech traditions and numerous organizations that have spent decades fighting for this legal precedent. Simply put, this is an attempt to close the barn door after the horse is already out. You can continue to hold this opinion. But the legal field will not bend to suit your opinion. Again, you can hold your beliefs all you want, just like I can ridicule them and stand here with the "try and stop me" doctrine regarding my rights (speech, guns, religion, etc). I'm willing to bet money now that I'll be proven right over time.

The Arizona Court of Appeals determined March 2 that a juvenile named Nickolas S. uttered fighting words when he hurled repeated epithets at a school official, including ?fucking bitch? and ?you stupid bitch,? when many other students were present. The student faced criminal charges under an Arizona law that prohibits a person from ?knowingly abus[ing] a teacher or other school employee on school grounds while the teacher or employee is engaged in the performance of his duties.?

A juvenile court had convicted Nickolas S. of two counts of violating the law ? once for profanity muttered under his breath and later when he let fly as above. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for profanity under the breath but affirmed conviction for the repeated epithets. The court in In Re Nickolas S. said that ?we have no difficulty concluding that a reasonable person in these circumstances might well react violently when confronted with such repeated, angry, and personal epithets.?

In North Dakota, the state high court Feb. 17 upheld a finding of delinquency for a juvenile called H.K. who uttered racial slurs at an African-American youth at a dance at a teen center and later at a restaurant. The state?s delinquency petition charged H.K. with disorderly conduct for her racially harassing speech at the teen center, and a juvenile court agreed.

H.K.?s attorney argued on appeal that the state impermissibly sought to criminalize the use of the word ?nigger.? The state high court wrote in In Re H.K. that while the First Amendment protects the mere use of this slur, ?an objectively reasonable person would find the totality of H.K.?s statements constituted explicit and implicit threats that were likely to incite a breach of the peace or violent reaction and alarm the listener.?

In other words, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined that the repeated barrage of racial slurs constituted unprotected fighting words and disorderly conduct.

https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/03/state-courts-find-teen-agers-fighting-words-unprotected/
for one,when we discussed this years before, I remember linking other recent cases but I am not really up for digging right now and I remembered this one off the top of my head.

Civilized = Takes care of their people, provides quality healthcare, education, welfare to all the people and has the happiest people overall, has high standard of living for all it's people, not just the elite. Treating all the people well> treating the elite well. The better all the people are treated, and higher quality of life for everyone, the more civilized the nation is.

We did stop the holding of numerous bad ideas through state force. We stop murder through state force, we stop child bride trafficking through state force, we stop child molesters through state force. That is how we actually do stop these things. My best friend's grandmother was forced to marry at the age of 12. This very common practice among Christians was stopped by state force and why this is not still as widespread as it was. Plenty of Christians thought it was their god given right to marry 12 year old's as well, good thing the state's use of force stopped this eh? Yes they whined about freedom of religion too while they were forced to stop but now they just point fingers at Saudi Arabia and scowl instead. From our history, traditionally Hopi women did not marry until much older, usually in their 20's and they were not required to marry at all, but that is one of differences between a maternal and paternal society. When the Christians came and tried to force their practices upon Hopi children, this was seen as extreme and horrific abuse, not unlike how child abuse is viewed now in modern society. It was not until much later did the Christians in the US view this as negatively and this was accomplished through state force. Yes they too cried "try and stop me" so they did stop them through force.

Their right's end where another's begins. The right to not be abused takes priority over the idea that someone as the right to abuse others. Threatening people with ethnic cleansing is abuse and no they should not have a right to abuse others in this way. By promoting white nationalism, they are actively threatening other constitutionally protected citizens and infringing upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Lil devils x:
https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/03/state-courts-find-teen-agers-fighting-words-unprotected/
for one,when we discussed this years before, I remember linking other recent cases but I am not really up for digging right now and I remembered this one off the top of my head.

Yes, and that was a state supreme court decision that was very narrow. It's possible to yell pretty much anything in such a way that it could constitute harassment. It also took the speech in context with his actions, so simply stating "I really dislike your racial group" in a neutral tone would not be unprotected under this courts ruling. To expand on this, if I were to follow a gay pride parade and yell slurs at them, I could be arrested for harrassment, but could not be arrested for simply burning a pride flag on public property, thank you Texas v. Johnson.

Civilized = Takes care of their people, provides quality healthcare, education, welfare to all the people and has the happiest people overall, has high standard of living for all it's people, not just the elite. Treating all the people well> treating the elite well. The better all the people are treated, and higher quality of life for everyone, the more civilized the nation is.

So I'm going to assume that you would consider most European countries civilized, along with maybe a few in Asia, and that most of the developing world is "uncivilized?" I might suggest that using that term is not the best.

We did stop the holding of numerous bad ideas through state force. We stop murder through state force, we stop child bride trafficking through state force, we stop child molesters through state force.

You're confusing words with actions. Just as the law treats real property [real estate] differently from personal property, so does the law treat speech acts different than physical acts. You can stop people from doing things through use of force. But you can't stop them from thinking it, and it's also a lost cause to stop them from speaking it. The Streisand effect is still a real thing. For example, when those black bloc brainets came out to try to stop Milo from speaking in California, they gave him a national microphone and the legitimate ability to play the victim (at least in the eyes of many in the public).

Their right's end where another's begins.

And my right to speech does not end with your feelings.

The right to not be abused takes priority over the idea that someone as the right to abuse others. Threatening people with ethnic cleansing is abuse and no they should not have a right to abuse others in this way.

Hypothetical far-flung future action is not a threat. And the legal/policy reasons for this are well founded. I'll give you another example: conventional marxists/MLs/MLMs talk about a dictatorship of the proletariat stage of their revolution, during which time certain liberties would be denied to the population (explicitly or implicit). I can't have communists arrested for advocating a communist revolution on the basis that such a revolution would, in the future, deprive me of my right to vote (or possibly my life considering their track record and my social class/political views). Likewise, just because some white nationalists are talking about an ethonostate does not give you the right to have them arrested because in the future, you would have your rights violated if somehow, they got in power. And if commies aren't your bag, I can give you a few other examples of hypothetical future action that doesn't cause problems.

By promoting white nationalism, they are actively threatening other constitutionally protected citizens and infringing upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I will give $100 to your favorite charity right now if you can show me where in the American constitution it says "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that this obligation is binding on other citizens and not the government

CM156:

Lil devils x:
https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/03/state-courts-find-teen-agers-fighting-words-unprotected/
for one,when we discussed this years before, I remember linking other recent cases but I am not really up for digging right now and I remembered this one off the top of my head.

Yes, and that was a state supreme court decision that was very narrow. It's possible to yell pretty much anything in such a way that it could constitute harassment. It also took the speech in context with his actions, so simply stating "I really dislike your racial group" in a neutral tone would not be unprotected under this courts ruling. To expand on this, if I were to follow a gay pride parade and yell slurs at them, I could be arrested for harrassment, but could not be arrested for simply burning a pride flag on public property, thank you Texas v. Johnson.

Civilized = Takes care of their people, provides quality healthcare, education, welfare to all the people and has the happiest people overall, has high standard of living for all it's people, not just the elite. Treating all the people well> treating the elite well. The better all the people are treated, and higher quality of life for everyone, the more civilized the nation is.

So I'm going to assume that you would consider most European countries civilized, along with maybe a few in Asia, and that most of the developing world is "uncivilized?" I might suggest that using that term is not the best.

We did stop the holding of numerous bad ideas through state force. We stop murder through state force, we stop child bride trafficking through state force, we stop child molesters through state force.

You're confusing words with actions. Just as the law treats real property [real estate] differently from personal property, so does the law treat speech acts different than physical acts. You can stop people from doing things through use of force. But you can't stop them from thinking it, and it's also a lost cause to stop them from speaking it. The Streisand effect is still a real thing. For example, when those black bloc brainets came out to try to stop Milo from speaking in California, they gave him a national microphone and the legitimate ability to play the victim (at least in the eyes of many in the public).

There are a good number of tribes that were/are far more civilized than some industrialized nations as they care for their people and have happier people and less inequality even if they do not ave much to share, they share what they do have to take care of their people. No they may not have the best of everything the world has to offer, but if the people are happier and everyone takes care of one another, they very well may be better off. Not taking care of all their people is what makes one less humane, less civilized.

Words can also be actions depending on what those words are. For example, "swatting" is just words that lead to actions right? What the words are matter. People cannot threaten to attack schools, no of course not they would be arrested. That is considered a terrorist threat. People also should not be able to threaten to kidnap people and ship them off to another country either, as that also should be considered a terrorist threat. Human trafficking is illegal and threatening to do so to others should be illegal as well. Threats should never be protected speech even if you say them calmly. The actual white nationalist platform is a terrorist threat in itself due to what those words are. They are calling for violence upon other people and that should be taken as a threat. There is no reason that should ever be protected, the only reason I see racist threats protected in the past is that it used to be socially acceptable to attack, abuse and threaten minorities as there was a widespread view that the constitution did not apply to them. If the constitution now does protect minorities, then that means the people should also be protected from these threats just like we protect our schools from being threatened. They deserve the same protection as everyone else. Keep in mind the white nationalists are not just threatening the adults here, they are threatening to attack families here, their children, parents, grandmothers.. everyone who does not fit into their delusional ethnostate with violence with the platform itself. That is not okay. and should not ever be okay.

Lil devils x:
There are a good number of tribes that were/are far more civilized than some industrialized nations as they care for their people and have happier people and less inequality even if they do not ave much to share, they share what they do have to take care of their people. No they may not have the best of everything the world has to offer, but if the people are happier and everyone takes care of one another, they very well may be better off. Not taking care of all their people is what makes one less humane, less civilized.

So it's a very subjective criteria.

Words can also be actions depending on what those words are. For example, " swatting" is just words that lead to actions right?

Which is illegal, because the person is making false statements to law enforcement for the purpose of immediately endangering a person's life.

People cannot threaten to attack schools, no of course not they would be arrested. That is considered a terrorist threat.

Nope, a person cannot make an actual threat. They can, however, argue that such actions are morally justified. To further explain, I cannot say I am going to chop your head off right now, but a person could legally say that they agreed with ISIS and everything they are doing

People also should not be able to threaten to kidnap people and ship them off to another country either, as that also should be considered a terrorist threat.

If I threaten to kidnap you and send you abroad by force, that's a threat. But again, it has to be imminent lawless action, not some hypothetical future claim.

Threats should never be protected speech even if you say them calmly.

Many of the things you are describing as threats aren't, actually

The actual white nationalist platform is a terrorist threat in itself due to what those words are. They are calling for violence upon other people and that should be taken as a threat.

They're not calling for imminent lawless action. And despite the fact that they've been able to call for these things for decades now, they're nowhere near being able to actually carry them out.

There is no reason that should ever be protected, the only reason I see racist threats protected in the past is that it used to be socially acceptable to attack, abuse and threaten minorities as there was a widespread view that the constitution did not apply to them.

Or it's because many principled people agreed that the state should not have power to restrain speech to that degree, and they won numerous court rulings to that effect.

If the constitution now does protect minorities, then that means the people should also be protected from these threats just like we protect our schools from being threatened. They deserve the same protection as everyone else.

They have the same level of protection. You are disagreeing about if that level of protection is sufficient.

Keep in mind the white nationalists are not just threatening the adults here, they are threatening to attack families here, their children, parents, grandmothers.. everyone who does not fit into their delusional ethnostate with violence with the platform itself. That is not okay.

Just because a group may at one future point perform violence as part of its ideology does not legally justify restraining them from non-violent speech. Otherwise, you could lock up a lot more people on both the left and right.

Also, I don't know if you saw my edit of my last post in relation to one of your edits, but the offer still stands.

CM156:

Their right's end where another's begins.

And my right to speech does not end with your feelings.

The right to not be abused takes priority over the idea that someone as the right to abuse others. Threatening people with ethnic cleansing is abuse and no they should not have a right to abuse others in this way.

Hypothetical far-flung future action is not a threat. And the legal/policy reasons for this are well founded. I'll give you another example: conventional marxists/MLs/MLMs talk about a dictatorship of the proletariat stage of their revolution, during which time certain liberties would be denied to the population (explicitly or implicit). I can't have communists arrested for advocating a communist revolution on the basis that such a revolution would, in the future, deprive me of my right to vote (or possibly my life considering their track record and my social class/political views). Likewise, just because some white nationalists are talking about an ethonostate does not give you the right to have them arrested because in the future, you would have your rights violated if somehow, they got in power. And if commies aren't your bag, I can give you a few other examples of hypothetical future action that doesn't cause problems.

By promoting white nationalism, they are actively threatening other constitutionally protected citizens and infringing upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I will give $100 to your favorite charity right now if you can show me where in the American constitution it says "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that this obligation is binding on other citizens and not the government

Verbal assault is a thing you know..
https://answers.uslegal.com/criminal/assault/23815/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-can-i-sue-for-verbal-assault-41907

Yes feelings do matter and if you cause another emotional distress, you very well could be liable for any health issues they have as a result of it. People are not entitled to go around threatening people and we have an abundant and long history of court ordered restraining orders issued to address that very subject. The threats made by the white nationalist platform should be treated no different than all of these other threats made that cause people harm. BTW causing people emotional distress does actually harm them physically, it is time the courts catch up with the science btw, they are out of date:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/stress-immune.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/09/22/349875448/best-to-not-sweat-the-small-stuff-because-it-could-kill-you

Yes, emotional distress can kill you.

The idea that tormenting others doesn't harm them is factually incorrect. Causing others stress by threatening them can actually cause more physical harm than just punching them in the first place.

White nationalists are not promoting a far flung future, they are promoting specific ethnic cleansing to be implemented now, as they stress the urgency of needing to act now because tomorrow will be too late.. Have you not actually listened to what they have been saying here? They are claiming this is an ethnic emergency and people must act now, some are promoting by any means possible, thus why we have had so many violently start murdering people already due to this rhetoric. They are calling for them to act now and in force, not later.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution, it is in the declaration of independence, I never said it was. The governments obligation to defend US citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic is in the constitutions as well as be responsible for the the general welfare of the people. If the government fails to protect it's citizens from white nationalists, they are failing in both regards.

CM156:

Lil devils x:
There are a good number of tribes that were/are far more civilized than some industrialized nations as they care for their people and have happier people and less inequality even if they do not ave much to share, they share what they do have to take care of their people. No they may not have the best of everything the world has to offer, but if the people are happier and everyone takes care of one another, they very well may be better off. Not taking care of all their people is what makes one less humane, less civilized.

So it's a very subjective criteria.

Words can also be actions depending on what those words are. For example, " swatting" is just words that lead to actions right?

Which is illegal, because the person is making false statements to law enforcement for the purpose of immediately endangering a person's life.

People cannot threaten to attack schools, no of course not they would be arrested. That is considered a terrorist threat.

Nope, a person cannot make an actual threat. They can, however, argue that such actions are morally justified. To further explain, I cannot say I am going to chop your head off right now, but a person could legally say that they agreed with ISIS and everything they are doing

People also should not be able to threaten to kidnap people and ship them off to another country either, as that also should be considered a terrorist threat.

If I threaten to kidnap you and send you abroad by force, that's a threat. But again, it has to be imminent lawless action, not some hypothetical future claim.

Threats should never be protected speech even if you say them calmly.

Many of the things you are describing as threats aren't, actually

The actual white nationalist platform is a terrorist threat in itself due to what those words are. They are calling for violence upon other people and that should be taken as a threat.

They're not calling for imminent lawless action. And despite the fact that they've been able to call for these things for decades now, they're nowhere near being able to actually carry them out.

There is no reason that should ever be protected, the only reason I see racist threats protected in the past is that it used to be socially acceptable to attack, abuse and threaten minorities as there was a widespread view that the constitution did not apply to them.

Or it's because many principled people agreed that the state should not have power to restrain speech to that degree, and they won numerous court rulings to that effect.

If the constitution now does protect minorities, then that means the people should also be protected from these threats just like we protect our schools from being threatened. They deserve the same protection as everyone else.

They have the same level of protection. You are disagreeing about if that level of protection is sufficient.

Keep in mind the white nationalists are not just threatening the adults here, they are threatening to attack families here, their children, parents, grandmothers.. everyone who does not fit into their delusional ethnostate with violence with the platform itself. That is not okay.

Just because a group may at one future point perform violence as part of its ideology does not legally justify restraining them from non-violent speech. Otherwise, you could lock up a lot more people on both the left and right.

Also, I don't know if you saw my edit of my last post in relation to one of your edits, but the offer still stands.

calling for violence upon people should be just as illegal as swatting and it also endangers people's lives. Context of course is the issue on the ISIS statement, joining or saying you are joining ISIS can still get you arrested, it is also illegal in the US to promote ISIS and spread their propaganda in the US as well and considered aiding a terrorist organization. Why is it that people have to threat more carefully when discussing ISIS than they d o white nationalists when White nationalists have carried out more attacks on US soil than everyone one else combined? Makes sense.

The white nationalist platform IS making immediate threats, not some future claim. They are stressing the urgency of taking action now, before " whites are outnumbered" that is not some future threat and I am not sure why you think they are not stressing the urgency. Maybe you are not listening to the same people I have been, remember it was my region the KKK and Nazis were arguing over who gets to hole a rally on what day here. I hear this stuff in person here, I get fliers. I hear what they are actually saying, they are acting like this is an emergency and people have to act today or it will be too late. This is " the future day" they used to talk about apparently.

You keep saying " future point". that is not the message they are delivering now. Maybe they used to deliver that message, now they are stressing this needs to happen now. In a few decades whites will be outnumbered so they see this as the time to act now and that is what they are doing now. I think you are thinking of how they behaved in the past, not the present.

Lil devils x:
Verbal assault is a thing you know..
https://answers.uslegal.com/criminal/assault/23815/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-can-i-sue-for-verbal-assault-41907

Which, as your link points out, deals with a threat of harm. So again, racist speech is one again not inherently unprotected.

Yes feelings do matter and if you cause another emotional distress, you very well could be liable for any health issues they have as a result of it.

IIED and NIED are torts that are almost impossible to win and the conduct on the defendant's part has to be exceptionally egregious. At most, these are civil wrongs.

. People are not entitled to go around threatening people and we have an abundant and long history of court ordered restraining orders issued to address that very subject

Again, you are confusing threats with hate speech.

The threats made by the white nationalist platform should be treated no different than all of these other threats made that cause people harm.

They are treated no different. If they call for imminent lawless action, they are illegal. If they don't, they aren't. It's the same across the board.

BTW causing people emotional distress does actually harm them physically, it is time the courts catch up with the science btw, they are out of date:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/stress-immune.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/09/22/349875448/best-to-not-sweat-the-small-stuff-because-it-could-kill-you

Yes, emotional distress can kill you.

As I said above, NIED and IIED are torts you could sue for.

The idea that tormenting others doesn't harm them is factually incorrect. Causing others stress by threatening them can actually cause more physical harm than just punching them in the first place.

So your argument seems to be that if speech causes a large deal of stress, it can be stopped. Do I even need to explain that massive potential for abuse under the law? Because to be frank, dealing with people who don't understand the law and history behind why speech is protected causes me stress.

And again, true threats are an actual doctrine under the law, and they are narrowly drawn.

White nationalists are not promoting a far flung future, they are promoting specific ethnic cleansing to be implemented now, as they stress the urgency of needing to act now because tomorrow will be too late.

First of all, everything they say is usually couched as a "when we get into power" statement, which they've been saying for decades with zero results.

Have you not actually listened to what they have been saying here? They are claiming this is an ethnic emergency and people must act now, some are promoting by any means possible, thus why we have had so many violently start murdering people already due to this rhetoric. They are calling for them to act now and in force, not later.

If you have any specific instances of calls for imminent lawless action, you have a case. If not, you do not. There is no Nazi exception to the first amendment.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution, it is in the declaration of independence, I never said it was. The governments obligation to defend US citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic is in the constitutions as well as be responsible for the the general welfare of the people. If the government fails to protect it's citizens from white nationalists, they are failing in both regards.

And the USA has protected its citizens from white nationalists. It just hasn't protected them from their speech, because speech is not actionable in this case.

Anyways, I think I've said everything I need to say, so I'll let you have the last word on this.

CM156:

White nationalists are promoting immediate threat of harm and do deliver. we have a ton of evidence to show that they do in fact inflict harm. How many attacks have we had lately? No the US has indeed failed at protecting it's citizens from white nationalists and is still not protecting it's citizens from white nationalists. That is why we are calling for actual enforcement. When we have had numerous actual attacks in addition to the threats of violence, it ceases to be some " distant" thing and instead an immediate danger.

https://gizmodo.com/hundreds-of-current-and-former-law-enforcement-officers-1835545223
This is a proven failure to protect at this point when the police themselves are part of the groups that the people need protected from.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/world/white-extremist-terrorism-christchurch.html

Lil devils x:
...it is not like whatever administration is in office will get to define hate speech laws on a whim...

So, what branch is the DoJ part of, what are the responsibilities of the DoJ, what are the privileges of the DoJ, and who appoints the DoJ?

Bonus points if you can tell me why the DoJ was founded, and what civil liberty enumerated in the Constitution itself, as opposed to the Bill of Rights, was suspended for the execution of that end.

https://gizmodo.com/hundreds-of-current-and-former-law-enforcement-officers-1835545223
This is a proven failure to protect at this point when the police themselves are part of the groups that the people need protected from.

The people you'd have charged with enforcing hate speech laws, but not using hate speech laws as an excuse to persecute criticism of the government and suppress dissent, everyone!

I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Marik2:
I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Don't worry, I'll almost certainly be here. I know it's not much of a consolation.

Lil devils x:

EDIT: Though you know it is odd that you think the government can be trusted with Nuclear reactors and waste but not with properly implementing and enforcing ethnostate promotion regulations. I would think arresting Nazis is a much simpler task.

I don't think the government can be trusted with either of those things. Just look up the Hanford site.

Marik2:
I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Why? It's not even his election. He's not even American.

Red Sentinel:

Marik2:
I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Why? It's not even his election. He's not even American.

Yeah that was funny Lunatic and what his face Zontar were from other countries yet really interested in making sure the Republicans took office and hand waving the far right and alt right activities and screaming "matifa" at everything.

Jarrito3001:
Yeah that was funny Lunatic and what his face Zontar were from other countries yet really interested in making sure the Republicans took office and hand waving the far right and alt right activities and screaming "matifa" at everything.

There are far-right and alt-right people here in Australia who talk about democrats being evil commie socialists and republicans being the heroic leaders that will lead us all to glory. That neither are things that exist here does not seem to dawn on them (well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

I've seen Australian far-right groups post parts of the US's pledge of allegiance with just a couple of words changed as though it actually applies to or represents us, which is beyond moronic.

DarthCoercis:

Jarrito3001:
Yeah that was funny Lunatic and what his face Zontar were from other countries yet really interested in making sure the Republicans took office and hand waving the far right and alt right activities and screaming "matifa" at everything.

There are far-right and alt-right people here in Australia who talk about democrats being evil commie socialists and republicans being the heroic leaders that will lead us all to glory. That neither are things that exist here does not seem to dawn on them (well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

I've seen Australian far-right groups post parts of the US's pledge of allegiance with just a couple of words changed as though it actually applies to or represents us, which is beyond moronic.

Maurice Newmann just had a piece printed stating that he thought QLD was going to become Venezuela in the near future.

I've not really been impressed by Palaszczuck, she just needs good competition and she'll lose her job. But thinking it will turn into Venezuela is just ridiculous

DarthCoercis:
(well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

Not the Commonwealth, just from the Queen of Australia (and her other realms and territories) being the head of state. We can stay in the Commonwealth as long as we recognise her as the head of that. Tonga, for example, has it's own royal family (their king once had to drive off libertarians from an island they'd created, which sounds much more epic than it was), but is still a member of the Commonwealth.

DarthCoercis:
I've seen Australian far-right groups post parts of the US's pledge of allegiance with just a couple of words changed as though it actually applies to or represents us, which is beyond moronic.

Eh, seen that sort of thing on both sides of politics, people copy and paste stuff from the US without checking if things are the same in the place where they live. C'mon. Especially if you are a far-right group that hates foreigners.

DarthCoercis:

Jarrito3001:
Yeah that was funny Lunatic and what his face Zontar were from other countries yet really interested in making sure the Republicans took office and hand waving the far right and alt right activities and screaming "matifa" at everything.

There are far-right and alt-right people here in Australia who talk about democrats being evil commie socialists and republicans being the heroic leaders that will lead us all to glory. That neither are things that exist here does not seem to dawn on them (well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

I've seen Australian far-right groups post parts of the US's pledge of allegiance with just a couple of words changed as though it actually applies to or represents us, which is beyond moronic.

Moronic is not a strong enough word. Like your own country does not have the problems you wish it had in your head to you adopt fake fight of another country. At this point I think these people are really just bored on top of just being dipshits mad that people of color, gays, women, and mimes or whatever group they don't like have the audacity to speak.

Thaluikhain:

DarthCoercis:
(well, republicans do, to a degree, but they're not a political party; they're a movement that want us to become independent from the Commonwealth).

Not the Commonwealth, just from the Queen of Australia (and her other realms and territories) being the head of state. We can stay in the Commonwealth as long as we recognise her as the head of that. Tonga, for example, has it's own royal family (their king once had to drive off libertarians from an island they'd created, which sounds much more epic than it was), but is still a member of the Commonwealth.

You're right. My apologies, I did not quite understand the difference. I'd thought that ditching the Queen as our head of state was hand-in-hand with leaving the commonwealth.

Jarrito3001:

Moronic is not a strong enough word. Like your own country does not have the problems you wish it had in your head to you adopt fake fight of another country. At this point I think these people are really just bored on top of just being dipshits made that people of color, gays, women, and mimes or whatever group they don't have the audacity to speak.

Indeed. We have enough of our own issues, so importing fake ones from overseas makes less than no sense. People that're full of hate will adopt anything that gives them permission to be hateful, it seems.

CM156:

Marik2:
I do wish that lunatic would have sticked around for the 2020 election.

Don't worry, I'll almost certainly be here. I know it's not much of a consolation.

Your willing to listen even if you have a different point of view. That's always welcome.

Not as entertaining as others for sure but I don't want my life feeling like a telenovela thats just arguing and gets nowhere

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here