Too late?

[Cerin]

Túrin, I am with you on free speech - I think Ann Coulter & Milo should be allowed to speak on campuses. I also think that you should have a debate format with them in these occasions.

But KKK & nazi rallies!!

Free speech means even repugnant, despicable, reprehensible speech. There have been Supreme Court cases specifically addressing the right of the KKK to hold public events. The law says the KKK is allowed to march. Of course such events should be protested, but protest doesn’t mean violently disrupting a lawful event. That is vigilantism, not protest, and imo, it is why violence has followed right wing events since Trump came on the scene.

Okay, while I am generally not on the pro-violence side here, I do think we need to stop acting like Nazi and KKK rallies are ordinary types of speech.

I don’t think anyone is pretending that Nazi and KKK speech are ordinary kinds of speech. I don’t think there is any disagreement about how disgusting and extreme these groups and their ideologies are.

[Túrin Turambar]

But wasn't that debate had with all possible bloodshed 70+ years ago?

In fairness, the debate over heresy was held "with all possible bloodshed" many, many times.

As I've said upthread, I don't support the right of anyone to turn out as a military force in public regardless of their ideology. Even if some paramilitary group promoting my own political views did it I would oppose it. Conversely, I cannot argue anyone should be stopped from holding a peaceful protest even if I despise the message. To me, it is OK for the government to suppress methods of political expression (e.g. announcing your views on a megaphone in a suburban street at 3am) but not the message itself.

And, as I said above, it's never actually worked when it's been tried.

[Túrin Turambar]

Posting again because I want to make a longer post offering another comparison –

In 1951, a referendum was held in Australia to determine whether the Federal Government should have the power to ban the Communist Party. The arguments put forward by the pro-banning side were those which have been advanced many times in this thread. As Communism’s ultimate goal was to dismantle the democratic system of government in every country worldwide, there was no place for it in a political debate within that system. And secondly, the confrontation between Communism and the West had now reached the stage of a shooting war in Korea and Malaya. And once Australian soldiers were being killed by Communists in battle, the question of Communism had moved beyond the point of peaceful discussion.

The referendum was narrowly defeated, and the Communist Party of Australia remained legal. It was briefly given a boost in popularity as the Communists had (perversely) been able to depict themselves as civil libertarians protecting everyone’s political freedoms, but it eventually withered and died. Today, I haven’t anyone who still thinks banning it would have been a good idea even among the most ardent Cold Warriors.

The events of the last month have not changed my opinion. While Neo-Nazis have rioted in an American city, a Communist regime in East Asia keeps twenty million people in a state of abject servitude and now threatens more than a hundred thousand people in Guam with ballistic missiles. If a Communist Party re-appeared in Australia, would I support banning it? No. Would I support using force to suppress its members from speaking or publishing? No. Is my own opinion on Communism relevant to those decisions? No. Anyone is, of course, welcome to argue that my opinions stem from an ignorance of Communism. After all, unlike some of the posters in this thread, I've never lived in a Communist country. But I’m happy to take that criticism, and I can’t see my views changing.

[yovargas]

Okay, while I am generally not on the pro-violence side here, I do think we need to stop acting like Nazi and KKK rallies are ordinary types of speech.

I don’t think anyone is pretending that Nazi and KKK speech are ordinary kinds of speech. I don’t think there is any disagreement about how disgusting and extreme these groups and their ideologies are.[/quote]

It is not different because it is "disgusting and extreme". It is different because they explicitly condone and support murder. That's not merely disgusting and extreme, but threatening and dangerous.

[Dave_LF]

It is different because they explicitly condone and support murder.

AND do it, let's not forget.

[Frelga]

There is no such thing as a non-violent Nazi rally. There can't be.

Their right to free speech is incompatible with mine. The reason they bring out these flags is to force me live in fear. Me, V, Inanna, yov. Everyone who doesn't appear to be a White, straight Christian. Everyone in the C-ville synagogue, waiting for them to decide if they are going to burn it or not (you all read the account that Sunny posted, right?). Everyone in my synagogue trying to decide if it's safe to have High Holiday services next month, and if it's not, then whether they'll go anyway. Every Muslim girl getting on a bus. Everyone with a same-sex partner who wants to hold hands in public.

Don't believe me? Put on a kippah or a hijab and walk by them.

Nazi flags in public means that the public supports the Nazis. Defense of their right to speak freely is an attack on my right to exist.

So, if someone has to live in fear, it should be them. Of being fired, being kicked out of private places of business, losing their friends, the respect of their family. And if they have to worry about being punched and then ridiculed for it, I'm not going to feel too bad.

I am deeply grateful to everyone who stood against them in C-ville. Peacefully for the most part, but I am grateful that when the Nazi mob charged, which they were planning to do from the start, the antifa was there to protect the students and the clergy when the police wasn't.

[Cerin]

Their right to free speech is incompatible with mine.

. . .

Defense of their right to speak freely is an attack on my right to exist.

So you're basically rejecting the rule of law and the first amendment. This is precisely the stance of PAN, which evidently decided that Trump and his supporters do not have the right to speak, and so set out to stop right wing rallies from taking place.

How does one stop a lawful assembly from taking place? One turns it into an unlawful assembly -- by making it violent so that law enforcement will shut it down.

I was always saying that I was more concerned by the reaction to Trump than by Trump himself, and here you see why. People are so overwrought emotionally by the spectacle of Trump in the White House, with its attendant ramifications, that they are willing to trample the constitution underfoot.

I believe we could have survived Trump.

I'll try to exit the discussion now.

[Sunsilver]

A Holocaust survivor speaks out about Charlottesville. She refuses to be silent, because "Silences after hate is dangerous, because if you are silent, it's an approval of what's going on."

Silence was Trump's first mistake in this whole mess.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/opinions/ ... index.html

[Sunsilver]

Now, THIS is true courage, in the face of Nazism! First time I've heard this story:

https://shaungroves.com/2017/08/people-will-people/

[Frelga]

Silence was Trump's first mistake in this whole mess.

It wasn't a mistake.

[Sunsilver]

I know, it was deliberate on his part. But now he's starting to realize the cost of his behavior, as even his allies turn on him.

I used to attend a house church group in Newmarket. The man who hosted it is a FB friend, and a staunch Trump supporter (even though Canadian ) Although he is now echoing the right wing spin about "Trump has NEVER been prejudiced", he has posted quite a few links recently that are critical of what happened in Charlottesville, and warn about the dangers of Neo-Nazis and prejudice against anyone who isn't white/WASP.

The light is gradually starting to dawn... And when I post things that are critical of Trump's behavior, he listens, and even sometimes likes them. For instance, he agreed that Trump SHOULD have spoken up sooner.

Of course, he liked it when Trump read out the teleprompter sound bite blasting the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but was notably silent when he backpedalled, and again criticized 'both sides' for their part in the violence.

I was a guest in this man's home nearly every Wednesday night for several years. He is a decent humanbeing. It hurts to see him being deceived.

[Primula Baggins]

Here's an interesting approach (link).

How to Make Fun of Nazis

For decades, Wunsiedel, a German town near the Czech border, has struggled with a parade of unwanted visitors. It was the original burial place of one of Adolf Hitler’s deputies, a man named Rudolf Hess. And every year, to residents’ chagrin, neo-Nazis marched to his grave site. The town had staged counterdemonstrations to dissuade these pilgrims. In 2011 it had exhumed Hess’s body and even removed his grave stone. But undeterred, the neo-Nazis returned. So in 2014, the town tried a different tactic: humorous subversion.

The campaign, called Rechts Gegen Rechts — the Right Against the Right — turned the march into Germany’s “most involuntary walkathon.” For every meter the neo-Nazis marched, local residents and businesses pledged to donate 10 euros (then equivalent to about $12.50) to a program that helps people leave right-wing extremist groups, called EXIT Deutschland.

They turned the march into a mock sporting event. Someone stenciled onto the street “start,” a halfway mark and a finish line, as if it were a race. Colorful signs with silly slogans festooned the route. “If only the Führer knew!” read one. “Mein Mampf!” (my munch) read another that hung over a table of bananas. A sign at the end of the route thanked the marchers for their contribution to the anti-Nazi cause — €10,000 (close to $12,000). And someone showered the marchers with rainbow confetti at the finish line.

The idea is spreading. I would think it would be highly effective against just about any group of arrogant, humorless, evil people.

Of course, in Germany the neo-Nazis are not allowed to carry firearms. (Or swastikas, for that matter.)

[River]

Meanwhile, in Boston, 15000 people showed up to counter-protest a far-right rally. They countered so hard the rally shut down early. Apparently there were a few scuffles and eight people were arrested, though given the size of the crowd I suspect that was inevitable. No one got killed, though.

[Primula Baggins]

The police were enforcing wide buffer zones between the two sides. It seems to have worked.

[River]

My husband, a veteran of many protests and counter-protests that went well and went bad, is a big fan of buffer zones and barricades. He doesn't understand why that didn't happen at Charlottesville...unless the authorities wanted violence to happen.

[Primula Baggins]

There is aerial footage of what they did in Boston. The rally, such as it turned out to be (about 50 people), was concentrated in a bandstand/gazebo. This was surrounded by an unmanned barricade, and then a broad area of lawn beyond it with another barricade that was manned by police. Beyond that were literally thousands of Bostonians. I read that they were periodically cheering the police.

The rally in the bandstand ended an hour early. I don't think it was a success.

[Túrin Turambar]

There is aerial footage of what they did in Boston. The rally, such as it turned out to be (about 50 people), was concentrated in a bandstand/gazebo. This was surrounded by an unmanned barricade, and then a broad area of lawn beyond it with another barricade that was manned by police. Beyond that were literally thousands of Bostonians. I read that they were periodically cheering the police.

The rally in the bandstand ended an hour early. I don't think it was a success.

Boston seems to have been about the best possible way of handling this sort of thing from the perspective of both the city authorities and the counter-protestors.

[River]

Hopefully other cities took notes. Though Boston, with major sports teams and a famous marathon, would be expected to have some crowd control skills.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I am a radical absolutist when it comes to the 1st Amendment. I absolutely believe in free speech. I'm skeptical about, but grudgingly accept, limits such as actively inciting violence. If you have to say the inciting violence is passive or indirect then it isn't covered under actively inciting violence.

Even for the KKK. Which does not mean I endorse the content of their speech. I hate having to add that qualifier but in this modern age it needs to be added because if you protect the 1st Amendment there are idiots out there who insist that defending their rights means you agree with them.

If you don't defend disgusting speech, you don't defend speech at all.

From my point of view, ALL political speech is about inciting violence. ALL of it. Left or right, far left or far right, alt-left or alt-right. fascist or antifa. The reason I see it that way is every single law that exists is enforced by the threat of violence, so anything other than the bare minimum of law is therefore violent. From my point of view if you support a law saying "you should not do X" then from my point of view you support killing people who do X.

So I see the Fascists as merely a more extreme version of what already exists. And I protect their right to say it.

[Frelga]

What about the rights of Muslim Jihadists?