Reply
Recognized Social Butterfly

BAN NAZI INSIGNIA

In Germany, Hungary, and Poland, it is illegal to display Nazi symbols or express Nazi ideology. You can be imprisoned for up to five years for such offenses. In England, there is support for having all countries in the European Union enact similar laws. I wish our Congress would pass a constitutional amendment banning Neo-Nazi propaganda in any form: imposing fines and/or incarceration would suppress this virulent strain of white-nationalist extremism.

schlomo
Honored Social Butterfly

SP fell into RK's trap. Whenever a political subject makes his hero look bad, he changes the subject. The Constitution (as in free speech) was never under attack in Charlottesville. It was about decent Americans seriously alarmed by the appearance of Nazis, Swastikas, and KKK members in public. They were terrified and very happy to see so many young Americans opposing the Nazis while defending values. Trump failed to immediately condemn the Nazis.

 

But just like their hero, members of the Trump Cult are ignoring the Nazis while changing the subject, trying to turn it into a free speech issue. SP, please don't fall into that trap.

0 Kudos
398 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

SP fell into RK's trap. Whenever a political subject makes his hero look bad, he changes the subject. The Constitution (as in free speech) was never under attack in Charlottesville. It was about decent Americans seriously alarmed by the appearance of Nazis, Swastikas, and KKK members in public. They were terrified and very happy to see so many young Americans opposing the Nazis while defending values. Trump failed to immediately condemn the Nazis.

 

But just like their hero, members of the Trump Cult are ignoring the Nazis while changing the subject, trying to turn it into a free speech issue. SP, please don't fall into that trap.


You just can't grasp the fact that rk is attempting to have a mature discussion with fellow seniors. This is not about "cult" nor "hero".

 

Now back to the topic - we are all alarmed by stuff we see in the streets. From my perspective, such concerns are made known to police for the needed actions. Vigilante actions are not the way to go for me. And yet in this case the vigilantes are celebrated by some.

 

Comparisons are attempted by some between current events here and the '30s in Germany. Yet, those who try to bring the President into their scenario and taint him are the ones calling for unauthorized actions by antifa to intimidate. Now, which side seems more Nazi? The weekend reenactors use the name and wear the uniforms but antifa are performing the actions.

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

SP fell into RK's trap. Whenever a political subject makes his hero look bad, he changes the subject. The Constitution (as in free speech) was never under attack in Charlottesville. It was about decent Americans seriously alarmed by the appearance of Nazis, Swastikas, and KKK members in public. They were terrified and very happy to see so many young Americans opposing the Nazis while defending values. Trump failed to immediately condemn the Nazis.

 

But just like their hero, members of the Trump Cult are ignoring the Nazis while changing the subject, trying to turn it into a free speech issue. SP, please don't fall into that trap.


You just can't grasp the fact that rk is attempting to have a mature discussion with fellow seniors. This is not about "cult" nor "hero".

 

Now back to the topic - we are all alarmed by stuff we see in the streets. From my perspective, such concerns are made known to police for the needed actions. Vigilante actions are not the way to go for me. And yet in this case the vigilantes are celebrated by some.

 

Comparisons are attempted by some between current events here and the '30s in Germany. Yet, those who try to bring the President into their scenario and taint him are the ones calling for unauthorized actions by antifa to intimidate. Now, which side seems more Nazi? The weekend reenactors use the name and wear the uniforms but antifa are performing the actions.    

Actually the topic is Banning Nazi insignia. I'm for it you?

So it begins.
0 Kudos
526 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Top White House economic advisor, Gary Cohn, says he seriously considered resigning after President Donald Trump's reaction to the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia.

  • Cohn told the Financial Times he was "under enormous pressure" to resign following the president's reaction to violent protests in Charlottesville.
  • "I will not allow neo-Nazis ranting 'Jews will not replace us' to cause this Jew to leave his job," Cohn tells the newspaper.
  • "Citizens standing up for equality and freedom can never be equated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK," Cohn says.
  •  A Gary Cohn resignation would 'crash the markets,' management guru Jeffrey Sonnenfeld says
Honored Social Butterfly

The Constitution was never under attack in Charlottesville. It was all about decent Americans seriously alarmed by the appearance of Nazis, Swastikas, and KKK members in public. They were terrified and very happy to see so many young Americans there defending our values.

 

But just like their hero, members of the Trump Cult are ignoring the Nazis and trying to turn it into a free speech issue. This is another example illustrating they live in an alternate reality.

Recognized Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

The Constitution was never under attack in Charlottesville. It was all about decent Americans seriously alarmed by the appearance of Nazis, Swastikas, and KKK members in public. They were terrified and very happy to see so many young Americans there defending our values.

 

But just like their hero, members of the Trump Cult are ignoring the Nazis and trying to turn it into a free speech issue. This is another example illustrating they live in an alternate reality.


The only thing that I would add to your comment is that I am sure some decent people on the right showed up at this rally.  However, as soon as the Nazi flag came out, anybody who was decent left and all that rk is defending are the rights of those cowardly losers who were left.  Since they were still able to exercise their free speech rights, why does anybody see something wrong with others (counter-protesters) doing the same?  That is what America is all about and if you don't agree with that rk, maybe you should be describing your ideal Utopia.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The Constitution was never under attack in Charlottesville. It was all about decent Americans seriously alarmed by the appearance of Nazis, Swastikas, and KKK members in public. They were terrified and very happy to see so many young Americans there defending our values.

 

But just like their hero, members of the Trump Cult are ignoring the Nazis and trying to turn it into a free speech issue. This is another example illustrating they live in an alternate reality.


The only thing that I would add to your comment is that I am sure some decent people on the right showed up at this rally.  However, as soon as the Nazi flag came out, anybody who was decent left and all that rk is defending are the rights of those cowardly losers who were left.  Since they were still able to exercise their free speech rights, why does anybody see something wrong with others (counter-protesters) doing the same?  That is what America is all about and if you don't agree with that rk, maybe you should be describing your ideal Utopia.


Illogical - a decent person attends a Kluxer and Nazi event but leaves when the flag comes out - what about the arm bands?

 

You still can't seem to grasp what "rk" is defending. It is the Constitutional  rights to free speech of the people holding the rally. As to your defense of the others - are you not aware that they were there to prevent the free speech. They were not only expressing their displeasure, they were also intending to deny that right to others.

 

Remember, a lot of this was brought about by the anarchists of antifa and remember their activities in Berkeley and Portland.

 

So. "others doing the same thing" does not apply.

0 Kudos
317 Views
42
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

 

You still can't seem to grasp what "rk" is defending. It is the Constitutional  rights to free speech of the people holding the rally. As to your defense of the others - are you not aware that they were there to prevent the free speech. They were not only expressing their displeasure, they were also intending to deny that right to others.

 


You are so wrong.

 

It is the Constitutional right of those protesting the KKK to be there and to actively protest the words of the KKK. They aren't there to "prevent" anything, they are there to actively protest it and it is their right to do so. You would deny their rights yet support the KKK?

 

Those protesting the KKK didn't "deny the rights" of the KKK, they didn't "deny the rights" for the KKK killer to drive his vehicle into the crowd and kill a woman and injure many others, did they? Too bad they coudln't have.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 

You still can't seem to grasp what "rk" is defending. It is the Constitutional  rights to free speech of the people holding the rally. As to your defense of the others - are you not aware that they were there to prevent the free speech. They were not only expressing their displeasure, they were also intending to deny that right to others.

 


You are so wrong.

 

It is the Constitutional right of those protesting the KKK to be there and to actively protest the words of the KKK. They aren't there to "prevent" anything, they are there to actively protest it and it is their right to do so. You would deny their rights yet support the KKK?

What does "actively protest" mean to you? How does it involve clubs and masks?

 

Those protesting the KKK didn't "deny the rights" of the KKK, they didn't "deny the rights" for the KKK killer to drive his vehicle into the crowd and kill a woman and injure many others, did they? Too bad they coudln't have.

Where did you see any mention of the right to run people over?? Making stuff up just clouds the issue. Maybe the "Yeah me too" approach is a better idea.


 

0 Kudos
394 Views
0
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The Constitution was never under attack in Charlottesville. It was all about decent Americans seriously alarmed by the appearance of Nazis, Swastikas, and KKK members in public. They were terrified and very happy to see so many young Americans there defending our values.

 

But just like their hero, members of the Trump Cult are ignoring the Nazis and trying to turn it into a free speech issue. This is another example illustrating they live in an alternate reality.


The only thing that I would add to your comment is that I am sure some decent people on the right showed up at this rally.  However, as soon as the Nazi flag came out, anybody who was decent left and all that rk is defending are the rights of those cowardly losers who were left.  Since they were still able to exercise their free speech rights, why does anybody see something wrong with others (counter-protesters) doing the same?  That is what America is all about and if you don't agree with that rk, maybe you should be describing your ideal Utopia.


Illogical - a decent person attends a Kluxer and Nazi event but leaves when the flag comes out - what about the arm bands?

How is that illogical?  An armband would be the same as a flag.  I am sure there were people who came without realizing who was really marching.  any decent person, as soon as they saw what was going on, would have turned around and left.

 

You still can't seem to grasp what "rk" is defending. It is the Constitutional  rights to free speech of the people holding the rally.  The counter protesters also have Constitutional Rights that you wish to deny.   As to your defense of the others - are you not aware that they were there to prevent the free speech. They are not preventing free speech by using theirs.  If you started preaching something on a street corner and 10 citizens walking by, didn't like it, and started shouting so you could not be heard, they are not infringing on your free speech rights.  They were not only expressing their displeasure, they were also intending to deny that right to others.  See my sentence above.

 

Remember, a lot of this was brought about by the anarchists of antifa and remember their activities in Berkeley and Portland.  Again, blaming one side only.  You have a very narrow minded perspective.

 

So. "others doing the same thing" does not apply.  Of course it does and by not acknowledging that logic you are claiming that some groups should have more rights than others.


 

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


Illogical - a decent person attends a Kluxer and Nazi event but leaves when the flag comes out - what about the arm bands?

How is that illogical?  An armband would be the same as a flag.  I am sure there were people who came without realizing who was really marching.  any decent person, as soon as they saw what was going on, would have turned around and left.

That clarifies it. Originally you said when the flags come out. I would think they arrive in their weekend reenactors uniforms so the arm bands are probably always there.

 

You still can't seem to grasp what "rk" is defending. It is the Constitutional  rights to free speech of the people holding the rally.  The counter protesters also have Constitutional Rights that you wish to deny.

.....to speak their own minds, yes, but not stopping someone else.

 

  As to your defense of the others - are you not aware that they were there to prevent the free speech. They are not preventing free speech by using theirs.  If you started preaching something on a street corner and 10 citizens walking by, didn't like it, and started shouting so you could not be heard, they are not infringing on your free speech rights. 

Coming at a group with a club in your hand indicates more than competing speech. 

 

They were not only expressing their displeasure, they were also intending to deny that right to others.  See my sentence above.

 

Remember, a lot of this was brought about by the anarchists of antifa and remember their activities in Berkeley and Portland.  Again, blaming one side only.  You have a very narrow minded perspective.

In Berkeley an speaker had approval to speak and those wanting to hear him had their rights to listen. antifa took both rights away. In Portland, antifa threatened city officials with violence if they did not cancel a parade that would have Republicans in it. The University of Fl denied a speaker access due to threats of violence

 

So. "others doing the same thing" does not apply.  Of course it does and by not acknowledging that logic you are claiming that some groups should have more rights than others.

O.K. - which group on the right is causing speakers to be denied a permit or invitation to speak or causing the permit or invitation to be cancelled??


 


 

0 Kudos
315 Views
38
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


Illogical - a decent person attends a Kluxer and Nazi event but leaves when the flag comes out - what about the arm bands?

How is that illogical?  An armband would be the same as a flag.  I am sure there were people who came without realizing who was really marching.  any decent person, as soon as they saw what was going on, would have turned around and left.

That clarifies it. Originally you said when the flags come out. I would think they arrive in their weekend reenactors uniforms so the arm bands are probably always there.

 

You still can't seem to grasp what "rk" is defending. It is the Constitutional  rights to free speech of the people holding the rally.  The counter protesters also have Constitutional Rights that you wish to deny.

.....to speak their own minds, yes, but not stopping someone else.

 

  As to your defense of the others - are you not aware that they were there to prevent the free speech. They are not preventing free speech by using theirs.  If you started preaching something on a street corner and 10 citizens walking by, didn't like it, and started shouting so you could not be heard, they are not infringing on your free speech rights. 

Coming at a group with a club in your hand indicates more than competing speech. 

 

They were not only expressing their displeasure, they were also intending to deny that right to others.  See my sentence above.

 

Remember, a lot of this was brought about by the anarchists of antifa and remember their activities in Berkeley and Portland.  Again, blaming one side only.  You have a very narrow minded perspective.

In Berkeley an speaker had approval to speak and those wanting to hear him had their rights to listen. antifa took both rights away. In Portland, antifa threatened city officials with violence if they did not cancel a parade that would have Republicans in it. The University of Fl denied a speaker access due to threats of violence

 

So. "others doing the same thing" does not apply.  Of course it does and by not acknowledging that logic you are claiming that some groups should have more rights than others.

O.K. - which group on the right is causing speakers to be denied a permit or invitation to speak or causing the permit or invitation to be cancelled??


 


That would be your friends the Nazis in the KKk

So it begins.
Honored Social Butterfly


@MIseker wrote:


 


That would be your friends the Nazis in the KKk

 

I shall graciously accept your apology for that offensive comment as soon as you offer it.


 

0 Kudos
389 Views
12
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:


 


That would be your friends the Nazis in the KKk

 

I shall graciously accept your apology for that offensive comment as soon as you offer it.


 


Simple .......... don't keep defending them and you won't see such accusations.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:


 


That would be your friends the Nazis in the KKk

 

I shall graciously accept your apology for that offensive comment as soon as you offer it.


 


Simple .......... don't keep defending them and you won't see such accusations.


Since you have been appointed MIseker's representative, possibly you can ask him/her/it where I have defended them? It seems that some (including your client) have a problem understanding the difference between defending groups and defending the Constitution.

0 Kudos
409 Views
10
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:


 


That would be your friends the Nazis in the KKk

 

I shall graciously accept your apology for that offensive comment as soon as you offer it.


 


Simple .......... don't keep defending them and you won't see such accusations.


Since you have been appointed MIseker's representative, possibly you can ask him/her/it where I have defended them? It seems that some (including your client) have a problem understanding the difference between defending groups and defending the Constitution.


No, you defend a white supremacist/nationalist group with a long history of killing blacks and others by lynchings, burnings and other violent ways, like running into a crowd of people with their vehicle. The people they killed had as much of a "Constitutional right" as those you defend.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
511 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:


No, you defend a white supremacist/nationalist group with a long history of killing blacks and others by lynchings, burnings and other violent ways, like running into a crowd of people with their vehicle. The people they killed had as much of a "Constitutional right" as those you defend.


 

You continually make that offensive claim. And yet, when asked for substantiation, you just repeat it.

 

Again I challenge you to quote any post of making your allegations valid.

0 Kudos
492 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:


 


That would be your friends the Nazis in the KKk

 

I shall graciously accept your apology for that offensive comment as soon as you offer it.


 


Simple .......... don't keep defending them and you won't see such accusations.


Since you have been appointed MIseker's representative, possibly you can ask him/her/it where I have defended them? It seems that some (including your client) have a problem understanding the difference between defending groups and defending the Constitution.


Once again you reside in opposite land. I have free speech, I don't need a rep to say anything I want to you. You may need one however, if you keep acting like you want to represent terrorists. Didn't you know terrorists are unamerican? Your posts lately seem to indicate that you don't know.

So it begins.
Honored Social Butterfly


@MIseker wrote:


Since you have been appointed MIseker's representative, possibly you can ask him/her/it where I have defended them? It seems that some (including your client) have a problem understanding the difference between defending groups and defending the Constitution.


Once again you reside in opposite land. I have free speech, I don't need a rep to say anything I want to you. You may need one however, if you keep acting like you want to represent terrorists. Didn't you know terrorists are unamerican? Your posts lately seem to indicate that you don't know.


Of course you do. And, of course you don't. Apparently Chas thought you did.

 

Let me try on more time. There is a difference between defending the Constitutional rights of a group and agreeing with the agenda of that group.

 

Are we in agreement on that?

0 Kudos
591 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:



Once again you reside in opposite land. I have free speech, I don't need a rep to say anything I want to you. You may need one however, if you keep acting like you want to represent terrorists. Didn't you know terrorists are unamerican? Your posts lately seem to indicate that you don't know.


Of course you do. And, of course you don't. Apparently Chas thought you did.

 

Let me try on more time. There is a difference between defending the Constitutional rights of a group and agreeing with the agenda of that group.

 

Are we in agreement on that?


The Constitution protects freedom of speech TO A POINT. It does NOT protect "fighting words" - those that can be expected to provoke a violent responce.

This was done with a 9-0 SCOTUS decission in 1942, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568  in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

 

Marching around with Nazi flags giving Nazi salutes can be expected to provoke a violent responce from anyone who is strongly opposed to an ideology that considers it good business to turn your grandmother into a bar of soap to defray the cost of slaughtering her and the rest of your family.

 

Marching around with Confederate Battle Flags and shouting racist drivil can be expected to provoke a violent responce from anyone who is strongly opposed to an ideology that allowed your great-grand mother to be sold as a prostitute and your great-grand father to be slaughtered for no reason whatsoever.

 

So the Constitution offers no protection to Nazi or KKK propaganda, and those espousing said propaganda have no Constitutional right to do so. Live with it, and stop pretending The Constitution defends the Nazis and KKK.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:



Once again you reside in opposite land. I have free speech, I don't need a rep to say anything I want to you. You may need one however, if you keep acting like you want to represent terrorists. Didn't you know terrorists are unamerican? Your posts lately seem to indicate that you don't know.


Of course you do. And, of course you don't. Apparently Chas thought you did.

 

Let me try on more time. There is a difference between defending the Constitutional rights of a group and agreeing with the agenda of that group.

 

Are we in agreement on that?


The Constitution protects freedom of speech TO A POINT. It does NOT protect "fighting words" - those that can be expected to provoke a violent responce.

This was done with a 9-0 SCOTUS decission in 1942, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568  in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

 

Marching around with Nazi flags giving Nazi salutes can be expected to provoke a violent responce from anyone who is strongly opposed to an ideology that considers it good business to turn your grandmother into a bar of soap to defray the cost of slaughtering her and the rest of your family.

 

Marching around with Confederate Battle Flags and shouting racist drivil can be expected to provoke a violent responce from anyone who is strongly opposed to an ideology that allowed your great-grand mother to be sold as a prostitute and your great-grand father to be slaughtered for no reason whatsoever.

 

So the Constitution offers no protection to Nazi or KKK propaganda, and those espousing said propaganda have no Constitutional right to do so. Live with it, and stop pretending The Constitution defends the Nazis and KKK.


scout - you are right, speech is protected to a point. And that point is determined by the Courts and their decisions enforced by police officials.I support that 100%. On the other hand, you are supporting the actions of vigilantes assuming the authority of the Courts and the police.

 

By the way, have you figured out yet why calling someone a Communist is a no-no but calling a fellow poster a Nazi, Fascist, Kluxer, racist, etc. is acceptable?

0 Kudos
560 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:



Once again you reside in opposite land. I have free speech, I don't need a rep to say anything I want to you. You may need one however, if you keep acting like you want to represent terrorists. Didn't you know terrorists are unamerican? Your posts lately seem to indicate that you don't know.


Of course you do. And, of course you don't. Apparently Chas thought you did.

 

Let me try on more time. There is a difference between defending the Constitutional rights of a group and agreeing with the agenda of that group.

 

Are we in agreement on that?


The Constitution protects freedom of speech TO A POINT. It does NOT protect "fighting words" - those that can be expected to provoke a violent responce.

This was done with a 9-0 SCOTUS decission in 1942, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568  in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

 

Marching around with Nazi flags giving Nazi salutes can be expected to provoke a violent responce from anyone who is strongly opposed to an ideology that considers it good business to turn your grandmother into a bar of soap to defray the cost of slaughtering her and the rest of your family.

 

Marching around with Confederate Battle Flags and shouting racist drivil can be expected to provoke a violent responce from anyone who is strongly opposed to an ideology that allowed your great-grand mother to be sold as a prostitute and your great-grand father to be slaughtered for no reason whatsoever.

 

So the Constitution offers no protection to Nazi or KKK propaganda, and those espousing said propaganda have no Constitutional right to do so. Live with it, and stop pretending The Constitution defends the Nazis and KKK.


scout - you are right, speech is protected to a point. And that point is determined by the Courts and their decisions enforced by police officials.I support that 100%. On the other hand, you are supporting the actions of vigilantes assuming the authority of the Courts and the police.

 

By the way, have you figured out yet why calling someone a Communist is a no-no but calling a fellow poster a Nazi, Fascist, Kluxer, racist, etc. is acceptable?


Well , probably because there are no Communists here on the other hand there are a few...

So it begins.
Honored Social Butterfly


@MIseker wrote:


scout - you are right, speech is protected to a point. And that point is determined by the Courts and their decisions enforced by police officials.I support that 100%. On the other hand, you are supporting the actions of vigilantes assuming the authority of the Courts and the police.

 

By the way, have you figured out yet why calling someone a Communist is a no-no but calling a fellow poster a Nazi, Fascist, Kluxer, racist, etc. is acceptable?


Well , probably because there are no Communists here on the other hand there are a few...

Would you care to name them and prove your point? Or would you rather just insult without justification?

 

Now, back to the idea of determining and protecting free speech being the job of the courts and police - any thoughts??


 

0 Kudos
494 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

No one should be called a Nazi, Kluxer, Fascist or Commie as a slur on their character.

However, pointing out that a person has either self-identified as one of those by carrying their banner, or by supporting those who carry the banner, seems more like the duty of all Americans to oppose ideologies that seek to destroy our Democracy and Government.

 

IMHO, to infer it is somehow defending the Constitution is only the job of the Courts is to promote the cause of those who seek to destroy the Constitution by leaving them unopposed until a legal action can be brought, long after the damage they do has been done.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

No one should be called a Nazi, Kluxer, Fascist or Commie as a slur on their character.

Fair enough. As I have pointed out numerous times, Karl Marx was a decent man who wrote a document that proposed a Utopia for all people. It was good-hearted but naive and the USSR is an illustration. So, calling someone a Marxist or a neoMarxist (Progressive) is not a slur on their character.

 

Conversely, consider the "Fascist Five" were you referring to decent people trying to do the right thing? When you suggest that fellow posters support Nazis or Kluxers, are you saying the Nazis and Kluxers are really decent people?? 

However, pointing out that a person has either self-identified as one of those by carrying their banner, or by supporting those who carry the banner, seems more like the duty of all Americans to oppose ideologies that seek to destroy our Democracy and Government.

Maybe we can put this thing to sleep - which posters self-identified as a Nazi, Kluxer, or Fascist? And, how did they do that?

 

IMHO, to infer it is somehow defending the Constitution is only the job of the Courts is to promote the cause of those who seek to destroy the Constitution by leaving them unopposed until a legal action can be brought, long after the damage they do has been done.

You may have "inferred" that but I stated that decisions about protected speech are the balliwick of the courts. Do you agree or not?

 

Secondly, I have stated that they implimentation of court decisions is the balliwick of police authorities. Do you agree or not? 

 

Finally, I have stated that there is no place in our Democracy for masked and armed gangs of vigilantes making the decsions for the courts or doing the job of the police. Do you agree or not?


 

0 Kudos
544 Views
0
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


Illogical - a decent person attends a Kluxer and Nazi event but leaves when the flag comes out - what about the arm bands?

How is that illogical?  An armband would be the same as a flag.  I am sure there were people who came without realizing who was really marching.  any decent person, as soon as they saw what was going on, would have turned around and left.

That clarifies it. Originally you said when the flags come out. I would think they arrive in their weekend reenactors uniforms so the arm bands are probably always there.

 

You still can't seem to grasp what "rk" is defending. It is the Constitutional  rights to free speech of the people holding the rally.  The counter protesters also have Constitutional Rights that you wish to deny.

.....to speak their own minds, yes, but not stopping someone else.

 

  As to your defense of the others - are you not aware that they were there to prevent the free speech. They are not preventing free speech by using theirs.  If you started preaching something on a street corner and 10 citizens walking by, didn't like it, and started shouting so you could not be heard, they are not infringing on your free speech rights. 

Coming at a group with a club in your hand indicates more than competing speech. 

 

They were not only expressing their displeasure, they were also intending to deny that right to others.  See my sentence above.

 

Remember, a lot of this was brought about by the anarchists of antifa and remember their activities in Berkeley and Portland.  Again, blaming one side only.  You have a very narrow minded perspective.

In Berkeley an speaker had approval to speak and those wanting to hear him had their rights to listen. antifa took both rights away. In Portland, antifa threatened city officials with violence if they did not cancel a parade that would have Republicans in it. The University of Fl denied a speaker access due to threats of violence

 

So. "others doing the same thing" does not apply.  Of course it does and by not acknowledging that logic you are claiming that some groups should have more rights than others.

O.K. - which group on the right is causing speakers to be denied a permit or invitation to speak or causing the permit or invitation to be cancelled??


 


 


If you are holding a public assembly you are running the risk of people who do not agree with you coming to voice their views.  If more of them show up, than you have, you may very will not be heard above the protest voices, but that is NOT hindering anybody's right to free speech.  If they are interested in holding rally to give out their message, they can always rent some kind of a hall, where they would have the right to have counter-protesters ejected if they got in.  Nobody has to let you stand up and preach your message in public, they have the right to voice their own opinions.

Honored Social Butterfly


sp362 wrote:


If you are holding a public assembly you are running the risk of people who do not agree with you coming to voice their views.  If more of them show up, than you have, you may very will not be heard above the protest voices, but that is NOT hindering anybody's right to free speech.  If they are interested in holding rally to give out their message, they can always rent some kind of a hall, where they would have the right to have counter-protesters ejected if they got in.  Nobody has to let you stand up and preach your message in public, they have the right to voice their own opinions.

 

You are overlooking the physical clashing in the streets.

 

And, how about the Berkeley situation where physical violence causes speakers to lose their free speech? Or, how about the city government of Portland cancelling a parade under threat of violence from the brownshirts? Should the city not deal with that rather than caving in?

 

Now Berkeley has a policy of charging a right wing speaker 15 grand to pay for security in order to get access to the campus. Is that not their responsibility or - even more to the point - should they not be charging the brownshirts? After all, they are the ones creating the need for more security.

 

But, what is your thinking about police authorities standing aside an allowing the violence of the antifas in Berkeley and Charlottesville?

 


 

0 Kudos
323 Views
22
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


If you are holding a public assembly you are running the risk of people who do not agree with you coming to voice their views.  If more of them show up, than you have, you may very will not be heard above the protest voices, but that is NOT hindering anybody's right to free speech.  If they are interested in holding rally to give out their message, they can always rent some kind of a hall, where they would have the right to have counter-protesters ejected if they got in.  Nobody has to let you stand up and preach your message in public, they have the right to voice their own opinions.

 

You are overlooking the physical clashing in the streets.

 

 


 


Funny you don't specifically mention the KKK supporter (or member) running his vehicle into the crowd protesting the KKK, killing one woman and injuring many others. Is that the "physical clashing" you speak of?

 

Can you cite something that those protesting the KKK did that mas anywhere near as bad?


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


If you are holding a public assembly you are running the risk of people who do not agree with you coming to voice their views.  If more of them show up, than you have, you may very will not be heard above the protest voices, but that is NOT hindering anybody's right to free speech.  If they are interested in holding rally to give out their message, they can always rent some kind of a hall, where they would have the right to have counter-protesters ejected if they got in.  Nobody has to let you stand up and preach your message in public, they have the right to voice their own opinions.

 

You are overlooking the physical clashing in the streets.

 

 


 


Funny you don't specifically mention the KKK supporter (or member) running his vehicle into the crowd protesting the KKK, killing one woman and injuring many others. Is that the "physical clashing" you speak of?

 

Can you cite something that those protesting the KKK did that mas anywhere near as bad?


I wouldn't think that it was necessary to get down to such basics, but apparently it is - here goes - the topic is free speech, not freedom to run people down in the street.

0 Kudos
390 Views
4
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png