• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlottesville: video evidence that the alt-right attacked first

Jimmy I cannot agree more! Just like you CANNOT legally scream fire in a crowded theater, you cannot call for the murder of millions of people and expect that to be "protected". Freedom of Speech does and SHOULD have limitations. As should firearms.
I think their speech in the march was a call to violence and not protected speech.
It is a difference that I do not expect many people to understand, or will try to understand, or even want to try to understand, but it is there and it is vital.
It must get so lonely so high a top your pedestal.

When I see Nazis, I see under-achievers. They adore history's fourth biggest mass-murderer. Don't they have any ambition? Don't they want to set their sights higher? Hitler getting all the attention is like when the person who contributed least to a class project gets all the credit from the teacher.
They can admire Hitler all they want. When they go out on to the streets, saying they want the Jews to die while carrying torches... we go into indefensible territory. But I understand it may be hard for you to see that... being up so high and all.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly - that speech he didn't write and OBVIOUSLY didn't believe? That speech?
So, Trump said this:

As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.

And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

You consider that support for neo-nazis?

That's his prepared Monday statement, which he walked back on Tuesday. That's the issue, that's what people are upset about.

You can be so tedious.

- - - Updated - - -

Was Mao supporters marching this past weekend? If not, WHO THE FUCK CARES WHO WAS WORSE???
Nazis are nazis. They are the top of the iceberg of evil. They engineered a plan to commit mass murder in an attempt to wipe away several types of people from the face of the Earth.

Sure, there have been genocides, mass murders, killers, bad groups in the past, but the Nazis have so little redeeming qualities, as so much that they have made Hollywood billions of dollars because they are such an easy enemy to portray.

The people in the marches in Virginia were chanting for the deaths of Jews. To fucking heck with anyone that defends them. They represent a form of hate that can not be tolerated.

Looking back on this, I see something I missed the first time around.

Hitler is responsible for 20 million non-combat deaths. Mao is responsible for 70 million. Yet Hitler is worse because of the reason he killed them?
 
You want to admire Hitler's goals, best to do such in the quiet and away. Chanting for death while carrying flaming torches (even if just suburban tiki torches), that is not tolerable. This isn't the slippery slope. The slippery slope is tolerating this sort of message from a mob with torches.

And this is what sucks about humanity. I shouldn't have to take off my shoes to use a plane. We shouldn't have to have seals on medication bottles. We shouldn't have to have limitations to free speech / expression. But people always find a way to fuck it up.
 
WHO THE FUCK CARES WHO WAS WORSE???
Nazis are nazis. They are the top of the iceberg of evil. They engineered a plan to commit mass murder in an attempt to wipe away several types of people from the face of the Earth.

Sure, there have been genocides, mass murders, killers, bad groups in the past, but the Nazis have so little redeeming qualities, as so much that they have made Hollywood billions of dollars because they are such an easy enemy to portray.

The people in the marches in Virginia were chanting for the deaths of Jews. To fucking heck with anyone that defends them. They represent a form of hate that can not be tolerated.

Looking back on this, I see something I missed the first time around.

Hitler is responsible for 20 million non-combat deaths. Mao is responsible for 70 million. Yet Hitler is worse because of the reason he killed them?

Jimmy thinks I'm vile because I consider them equally vile instead of judging them for the reasons they killed so many millions of people. Democide is acceptable as long as it is equal opportunity.
 
You want to admire Hitler's goals, best to do such in the quiet and away. Chanting for death while carrying flaming torches (even if just suburban tiki torches), that is not tolerable. This isn't the slippery slope. The slippery slope is tolerating this sort of message from a mob with torches.

And this is what sucks about humanity. I shouldn't have to take off my shoes to use a plane. We shouldn't have to have seals on medication bottles. We shouldn't have to have limitations to free speech / expression. But people always find a way to fuck it up.
So you are saying that there should be no limitations on free speech unless it is speech that you don't like?

It is exactly that speech that is provocative and inflationary that the first amendment protects. Someone giving a speech that everyone agrees with doesn't need protection - such speech is allowed in even the worse tyrannical states.
 
You want to admire Hitler's goals, best to do such in the quiet and away. Chanting for death while carrying flaming torches (even if just suburban tiki torches), that is not tolerable. This isn't the slippery slope. The slippery slope is tolerating this sort of message from a mob with torches.

And this is what sucks about humanity. I shouldn't have to take off my shoes to use a plane. We shouldn't have to have seals on medication bottles. We shouldn't have to have limitations to free speech / expression. But people always find a way to fuck it up.
So you are saying that there should be no limitations on free speech unless it is speech that you don't like?
No. I didn't say anything remotely like that. And inflammatory? They were literally carrying torches and calling for the death of Jews. That is incendiary. There are all sorts of things I don't agree with that I don't think should be prohibited speech. However, a mob with torches chanting that they want the Jews to die, I don't think this is what Jefferson or Madison had in mind regarding protected speech.

It is exactly that speech that is provocative and inflationary that the first amendment protects. Someone giving a speech that everyone agrees with doesn't need protection.
We are talking about promoting GENOCIDE! Not whether women should have to stay in the home.
 
We can add the ACLU to the list of Nazi sympathizers.

Tensions grow inside ACLU over defending free-speech rights for the far right

t was 1934 and fascism was on the march not only in Europe but in America. People who admired Adolf Hitler, who had taken power in Germany, formed Nazi organizations in the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union, represented by lawyers who were Jewish, faced an existential question: Should the freedoms it stood for since its founding in 1920 apply even to racist groups that would like nothing more than to strip them away?


Ultimately, after much internal dissent, the ACLU decided: Yes, the principles were what mattered most. The ACLU would stand up for the free-speech rights of Nazis.

“We do not choose our clients,” the ACLU’s board of directors wrote in an October 1934 pamphlet called “Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis In America?” “Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us. To those who support suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask — where do you draw the line?”

Once again, the ACLU is wrestling with how to respond to a far-right movement in the U.S. whose rising visibility is prompting concerns from elected officials and activists.

In response to the deadly violence at a rally in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, the ACLU’s three California affiliates released a statement Wednesday declaring that “white supremacist violence is not free speech.”

The national organization said Thursday that it would not represent white supremacist groups that want to demonstrate with guns. That stance is a new interpretation of the ACLU’s official position that reasonable gun regulation does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Officials in Charlottesville had initially denied organizers of the “Unite the Right” rally a permit to hold the event at the site of a Robert E. Lee statue. But the ACLU filed a lawsuit defending protesters’ rights to gather there. The rally ended with one woman killed and dozens of people injured as neo-Nazis and other far-right groups that had come armed with shields, helmets and even guns clashed violently with counter-protesters.
 
We can add the ACLU to the list of Nazi sympathizers.

I'd say that pre-WWII statements don't count in the same way on the topic of Nazis that post-WWII statements do, but there's not much of a point in telling you something that you don't already know.

Good work on your continued efforts to give left wing groups moral equivalence to the Nazis, though. You will be receiving your coupon for 10% off all Trump branded merchandise in the mail.
 
We can add the ACLU to the list of Nazi sympathizers.

I'd say that pre-WWII statements don't count in the same way on the topic of Nazis that post-WWII statements do, but there's not much of a point in telling you something that you don't already know.

The ACLU has also defended the KKK and Nazi Sympathizers AFTER WWII. This article is current events, not ancient history.

Good work on your continued efforts to give left wing groups moral equivalence to the Nazis, though. You will be receiving your coupon for 10% off all Trump branded merchandise in the mail.

That you think that is what I'm doing shows the need for organizations like the ACLU.
 
So you are saying that there should be no limitations on free speech unless it is speech that you don't like?
No. I didn't say anything remotely like that. And inflammatory? They were literally carrying torches and calling for the death of Jews. That is incendiary. There are all sorts of things I don't agree with that I don't think should be prohibited speech. However, a mob with torches chanting that they want the Jews to die, I don't think this is what Jefferson or Madison had in mind regarding protected speech.

It is exactly that speech that is provocative and inflationary that the first amendment protects. Someone giving a speech that everyone agrees with doesn't need protection.
We are talking about promoting GENOCIDE! Not whether women should have to stay in the home.

Don't kid yourself you are on the side of the law here. This has been litigated many times over and it's clearly protected speech in this country.
 
Clearly inciting violence is not protected. But they're usually not so direct about it to cross the line to illegality.
 
Clearly inciting violence is not protected. But they're usually not so direct about it to cross the line to illegality.

Well, no, actually there's a pretty clear set of tests.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
 
No, you are wrong?

Advocating violence is protected as long as is not a) lawless, b) imminent and c) likely.
 
No, you are wrong?

Advocating violence is protected as long as is not a) lawless, b) imminent and c) likely.

The word was "inciting". Check again.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

A word is "inciting". Others words are "imminent", "lawless" and "likely".
 
Sorry, dismal, but "I am here to kill X-ish people" is different than "I advocate killing X-ish people."
 
A word is "inciting". Others words are "imminent", "lawless" and "likely".

Still other words are "stupid", "diversion" and "rhetorical".

Sorry, I thought you were responding to blastula:

Clearly inciting violence is not protected. But they're usually not so direct about it to cross the line to illegality.

Hmm, do you have a language you prefer to English?

I already produced words in English that say inciting violence is protected unless that violence is imminent, lawless and likely.

For example, if I said 'Let's put Hillary Clinton on trial for high treason and execute her" that statement calls for violence that is neither a) imminent, b) lawless or c) likely.
 
Still other words are "stupid", "diversion" and "rhetorical".

Sorry, I thought you were responding to blastula:

Clearly inciting violence is not protected. But they're usually not so direct about it to cross the line to illegality.

Hmm, do you have a language you prefer to English?

I already produced words in English that say inciting violence is protected unless that violence is imminent, lawless and likely.

For example, if I said 'Let's put Hillary Clinton on trial for high treason and execute her" that statement calls for violence that is neither a) imminent, b) lawless or c) likely.

You are arguing with someone who apparently believes that they understand the Constitution and law better than the Supreme Court does.
 
Back
Top Bottom