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


@rk9152 wrote:

@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.


No, the topic is not "free speech", you are trying to change the topic again.  The topic is banning Nazi insignia.

 

Care to comment on the topic?


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


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@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.


No, the topic is not "free speech", you are trying to change the topic again.  The topic is banning Nazi insignia.

 

Care to comment on the topic?


Did you happen to read the post I was responding to? Specifically read the part starting with "Funny..."

0 Kudos
392 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@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.


Again folks actually the topic is not freedom of speech it's about banning swastikas and you seem to support not being in them that's okay that fine guy Charlie Manson card one on his forehead in support of all the fine Nazis across the world

So it begins.
Honored Social Butterfly


@MIseker wrote:


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.


 

Again folks actually the topic is not freedom of speech it's about banning swastikas and you seem to support not being in them that's okay that fine guy Charlie Manson card one on his forehead in support of all the fine Nazis across the world


I have no idea as to the meaning of "you seem to support not being in them" but, not unusual. I assume it was just one attempt at an offensive comment that fell flat.

 

Are there any other symbols you'd like to see banned? How about the Fascist symbol - the Black Power fist - the Hammer and Sickle? I know there are some who you like to see the crucifix gone as well as the Republican Party sumbol. That is a big step, but who knows, once you get the ball rolling........

0 Kudos
396 Views
0
Report
Recognized 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.

 

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?

 


 


I don't think I am overlooking anything.  Why do you think the Nazis and the KKK have had rally's for so long?  Because they are considered to be protected under free speech.  You cannot infringe on somebody else's right to free speech as a so called protection for others.  Again, rent a private hall if you want to make sure your message is heard.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 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.

 

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?

 


 


I don't think I am overlooking anything.  Why do you think the Nazis and the KKK have had rally's for so long?  Because they are considered to be protected under free speech.  You cannot infringe on somebody else's right to free speech as a so called protection for others.  Again, rent a private hall if you want to make sure your message is heard.


If antifa can close down a speech at a public hall, how would a private hall help. Remember, the violence in Berkeley occurred outside the speaking area and in Charlotresville it wa outside the supposed rally area.

 

I have no agreement with the goals of the Kluxers, etc. nor do I agree with the goals of the antifa but I believe that they each do have the right to SPEAK but not to disrupt. And "speech" does not inclube clubs, sprays nor blocking access.

0 Kudos
366 Views
13
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 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.

 

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?

 


 


I don't think I am overlooking anything.  Why do you think the Nazis and the KKK have had rally's for so long?  Because they are considered to be protected under free speech.  You cannot infringe on somebody else's right to free speech as a so called protection for others.  Again, rent a private hall if you want to make sure your message is heard.


If antifa can close down a speech at a public hall, how would a private hall help. Remember, the violence in Berkeley occurred outside the speaking area and in Charlotresville it wa outside the supposed rally area.

 

I have no agreement with the goals of the Kluxers, etc. nor do I agree with the goals of the antifa but I believe that they each do have the right to SPEAK but not to disrupt. And "speech" does not inclube clubs, sprays nor blocking access.


In a private hall, the renter of the hall has the right to decide who they will and will not let in and has the right to remove anybody they please.  That is why Trump was able to remove people from his political rallies who came protest.  Not because they were protesting, but because the rally was at a private venue.

 

KKKers have held rallies and been shouted down for 50 years because everybody has a right to free speech.  You cannot suppress one side only.  I have never advocated violence which is a different discussion and has nothing to do with free speech rights.

0 Kudos
386 Views
10
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


If antifa can close down a speech at a public hall, how would a private hall help. Remember, the violence in Berkeley occurred outside the speaking area and in Charlotresville it wa outside the supposed rally area.

 

I have no agreement with the goals of the Kluxers, etc. nor do I agree with the goals of the antifa but I believe that they each do have the right to SPEAK but not to disrupt. And "speech" does not include clubs, sprays nor blocking access.


In a private hall, the renter of the hall has the right to decide who they will and will not let in and has the right to remove anybody they please.  That is why Trump was able to remove people from his political rallies who came protest.  Not because they were protesting, but because the rally was at a private venue.

True - but there is the getting in and the getting out part that is still a factor. Berkeley for example, the brownshirts were only outside doing their violence but they managed to get the talk cancelled.

 

KKKers have held rallies and been shouted down for 50 years because everybody has a right to free speech.  You cannot suppress one side only.  I have never advocated violence which is a different discussion and has nothing to do with free speech rights.

The Kluxers came to town for a rally, they applied for a permit, the brownshirts came to town to  stop them. I am not taking one side only, you are. I support anyone legally expressing their free speech - not the content, the "freedom".


 

0 Kudos
506 Views
9
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


 

KKKers have held rallies and been shouted down for 50 years because everybody has a right to free speech.  You cannot suppress one side only.  I have never advocated violence which is a different discussion and has nothing to do with free speech rights.

The Kluxers came to town for a rally, they applied for a permit, the brownshirts came to town to  stop them. I am not taking one side only, you are. I support anyone legally expressing their free speech - not the content, the "freedom".


 


If you support anyone legally expressing their free speech rights, then you have to give counter-protesters the same right.  That is what is in the Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution about free speech requiring a permit or having your free speech rights elevated above somebody else's by possessing a permit.  If you still think you can defend one groups free speech rights by limiting the rights of others, we will never agree and that is NOT what is in the Constitution.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


If you support anyone legally expressing their free speech rights, then you have to give counter-protesters the same right.  That is what is in the Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution about free speech requiring a permit or having your free speech rights elevated above somebody else's by possessing a permit.  If you still think you can defend one groups free speech rights by limiting the rights of others, we will never agree and that is NOT what is in the Constitution.


I read something interesting in the paper this morning. Apparently courts have ruled that a "heckler veto" is not protected by the 1st Amendment. The is defined as drowning out a speaker. The writer also pointed out that "peaceful assembly" is protected. My objections have been people coming to town with the expressed intention of shutting down someone else's free speech - that is not "peaceful assembly". That is the intent of antifa and it is an action specifically supported by some posters.

 

As to the permit issue - if having a permit does not grant you some rights not held by someone without a permit - what is the point of permits?

 

Here is the full article:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-when-controversial-speakers-come-to-campus/2335151

Recognized Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


If you support anyone legally expressing their free speech rights, then you have to give counter-protesters the same right.  That is what is in the Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution about free speech requiring a permit or having your free speech rights elevated above somebody else's by possessing a permit.  If you still think you can defend one groups free speech rights by limiting the rights of others, we will never agree and that is NOT what is in the Constitution.


I read something interesting in the paper this morning. Apparently courts have ruled that a "heckler veto" is not protected by the 1st Amendment. The is defined as drowning out a speaker. The writer also pointed out that "peaceful assembly" is protected. My objections have been people coming to town with the expressed intention of shutting down someone else's free speech - that is not "peaceful assembly". That is the intent of antifa and it is an action specifically supported by some posters.

 

As to the permit issue - if having a permit does not grant you some rights not held by someone without a permit - what is the point of permits?

 

Here is the full article:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-when-controversial-speakers-come-to-campus/2335151


You keep lumping all counter-protesters together as violent, that is simply not true.  Any idiot (on either side) that starts anything should be arrested, the rest of the group should be allowed to continue.

 

The purpose of a permit is so that a jurisdiction can plan for the event.  It has nothing to do with elevating the rights of one group above another.  As I said before if the want their rights elevated, they can rent their own hall where they would have authority to decide what was said.

 

This is just an opinion piece. 

From the opinion: "Another principle is extremely important: The First Amendment typically does not allow for a heckler's veto. A heckler's veto occurs when an audience's hostile reaction to a speaker is allowed to silence and drown out that speaker. Think of an audience heckling a comedian off the stage. Under First Amendment principles, it is the duty of the government to protect the speaker from such a silencing effect. A famous example is when a court stepped in during the late 1970s to protect the Nazis' right to march through Skokie, Ill., where many Holocaust survivors resided."

The problem with using that as an example of a "hecklers veto is that while the Supreme Court did allow the Nazi's to march (the free speech rights we have been talking about), there was also people exercising their rights to counter-protest and in fact drowned out the Nazi's with their voices.  Just because he states there is a "hecklers veto", but gives nothing to support it, does not make it true.  You will have to show me where in the First Amendment anything like that is mentioned.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


You keep lumping all counter-protesters together as violent, that is simply not true.  Any idiot (on either side) that starts anything should be arrested, the rest of the group should be allowed to continue.

True, because of the counter protesters under consideration be it Charlottesville of Berkeley. No doubt there are others that do not involve violence of "heckler veto" but they do not seem to come up,

 

The purpose of a permit is so that a jurisdiction can plan for the event.  It has nothing to do with elevating the rights of one group above another.  As I said before if the want their rights elevated, they can rent their own hall where they would have authority to decide what was said.

I agree with the intent. However, if one group has a permit to do their thing in a particular area and another doesn't I believe that the one does have elevated rights based on the permit.

 

This is just an opinion piece. 

From the opinion: "Another principle is extremely important: The First Amendment typically does not allow for a heckler's veto. A heckler's veto occurs when an audience's hostile reaction to a speaker is allowed to silence and drown out that speaker. Think of an audience heckling a comedian off the stage. Under First Amendment principles, it is the duty of the government to protect the speaker from such a silencing effect. A famous example is when a court stepped in during the late 1970s to protect the Nazis' right to march through Skokie, Ill., where many Holocaust survivors resided."

The problem with using that as an example of a "hecklers veto is that while the Supreme Court did allow the Nazi's to march (the free speech rights we have been talking about), there was also people exercising their rights to counter-protest and in fact drowned out the Nazi's with their voices.  Just because he states there is a "hecklers veto", but gives nothing to support it, does not make it true.  You will have to show me where in the First Amendment anything like that is mentioned.

Sounds like you approve of the "heckler's veto". They have become quite popular of late but I really do not see them as contributing to anything but further divisions in our society. For example, at a town hall, a person can let their thinking be known but all too often the chants start there by shutting down the exchange of ideas.


 

0 Kudos
380 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

The neoNazis choose public venues because they know their opponents will show up and violence will give them more media coverage. They also know their own media - Fox, Breightbart, et al - has become quite profecient in only airing violent acts by Americas against Nazis, as recent events have amply demonstrated.

 

Here's the problem for the Right Wingers: Nazis and other alt-Right cryptoNazis use what are called "fighting words". Fighting Words are defined as words which would likely make the person to whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment, as was firmly established in a 9-0 SCOTUS decission in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

 

So wingers, drop the facade of "free speech" - the words you want to defend are NOT protected by the Constitution your words and deeds seek to shred.

 

By the way, when Brownshirts show up at a KKK rally, they're part of the cheering section.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

The neoNazis choose public venues because they know their opponents will show up and violence will give them more media coverage. They also know their own media - Fox, Breightbart, et al - has become quite profecient in only airing violent acts by Americas against Nazis, as recent events have amply demonstrated.

Of course - the weekend reenactors love publicity. And, the leftwing fascist mob (antifa) needs a target. So, they sort of fill in each other's needs.

 

Here's the problem for the Right Wingers: Nazis and other alt-Right cryptoNazis use what are called "fighting words". Fighting Words are defined as words which would likely make the person to whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment, as was firmly established in a 9-0 SCOTUS decission in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

On the grand scale of things I, as a Conservative. Based on the above, are you calling me a Nazi or a cryptoNazi??

 

"UNPROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT" - I agree. You actually cited a court case - cool. Now, in the case of Charlottesville, which court made the ruling - or was it the brownshirts of the left?

 

So wingers, drop the facade of "free speech" - the words you want to defend are NOT protected by the Constitution your words and deeds seek to shred.

Not just yet - the Constitution and the rule of law are still in effect. Come your revolution - who knows?

 

By the way, when Brownshirts show up at a KKK rally, they're part of the cheering section.

I did not see antifa cheering.


 

0 Kudos
485 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Aahh... so now nazi scum are "reenactors"?

 

Lots of whackjob euphemisms in the conservative "alternate reality"

 

 

44>dolt45
Recognized Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


If antifa can close down a speech at a public hall, how would a private hall help. Remember, the violence in Berkeley occurred outside the speaking area and in Charlotresville it wa outside the supposed rally area.

 

I have no agreement with the goals of the Kluxers, etc. nor do I agree with the goals of the antifa but I believe that they each do have the right to SPEAK but not to disrupt. And "speech" does not include clubs, sprays nor blocking access.


In a private hall, the renter of the hall has the right to decide who they will and will not let in and has the right to remove anybody they please.  That is why Trump was able to remove people from his political rallies who came protest.  Not because they were protesting, but because the rally was at a private venue.

True - but there is the getting in and the getting out part that is still a factor. Berkeley for example, the brownshirts were only outside doing their violence but they managed to get the talk cancelled.

 

KKKers have held rallies and been shouted down for 50 years because everybody has a right to free speech.  You cannot suppress one side only.  I have never advocated violence which is a different discussion and has nothing to do with free speech rights.

The Kluxers came to town for a rally, they applied for a permit, the brownshirts came to town to  stop them. I am not taking one side only, you are. I support anyone legally expressing their free speech - not the content, the "freedom".


 


So IsIs can apply for a permit and spread their hate or the Taliban?  As long as they have a permit?  Because Nazis and the Klan are no better than any other terrorist orginization.  Or is it because the Klan and Nazis pretend to be good Christians where the Taliban and IsIs pretend to be good Muslims.

Honored Social Butterfly


@creppelrm wrote:

So IsIs can apply for a permit and spread their hate or the Taliban?  As long as they have a permit?  Because Nazis and the Klan are no better than any other terrorist orginization.  Or is it because the Klan and Nazis pretend to be good Christians where the Taliban and IsIs pretend to be good Muslims.


So I do not establish nor enforce permitting standards. If I am not happy with the standards established I have recourse via the courts and via the election box. What I do not believe in is the standards being established and enforced by the masked, armed vigilantes.

 

As to the Kluxers vs the Taliban, I do not believe that in our country (at least until the revolution) religion is a factor.

0 Kudos
481 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Of course some will refuse to acceot some of this due to the source. However the ACLU parts might be of interest,

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/charlottesville-stand-order/

0 Kudos
372 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

Of course some will refuse to acceot some of this due to the source. However the ACLU parts might be of interest,

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/charlottesville-stand-order/


Yes, interesting article, but mostly opinion and proves nothing.  As far the quotes from the ACLU, I think they are little more than "Monday morning quarterbacking".

0 Kudos
397 Views
0
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.

 

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?

 


 


Did they? 

Where are the multiple corroborating videos?

You got copies of orders from the superiors of the police ordering that they stand back and do nothing, as well as sworn statements by officers to that effect that were made under oath in front of a judge?

You CAN of course, PROVE that?

Where are they?

Why aren't they posted yet?

Giles, O'Keefe and Daleiden still editing them?

 

44>dolt45
Trusted Social Butterfly

Intriguing, isn't it?  This 'free speech' and 'symbols' thing?  From outright absurd all the way up to flambouyant hypocrisy.  What 'free speech' means has been bent, twisted, hammered, and tortured into whatever form a demagogue finds useful to play to the people who look at them. 

 

A symbol may not be beauty, but the meaning of that symbol is most certainly what the beholder sees...and 'there's the rub'.   Societal norms say what is ugly, insane or evil.  Burns said,"...O, wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us It wd froe monie a blunder free us An foolish Notion."  True, I guess, but the ugly, insane or evil don't seem to care much about that.

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@umbarch64 wrote:

Intriguing, isn't it?  This 'free speech' and 'symbols' thing?  From outright absurd all the way up to flambouyant hypocrisy.

 


Yes it is intriguing.  The same posters arguing free speech for some are also arguing against it for others.  Sounds like a lot of hypocrisy doesn't it?  Liberals campaigning for the rights of some, all the while intent on denying it for others.  How liberal of them.

0 Kudos
317 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

What next?  First the Confederate monuments, flag or anything appearing Confederate.

 

Now another flag that is distasteful....no doubt about the reason it is so, but some would forbid it.  Don't forget the hammer and sickle flag of the Soviet Union and other countries.  Yet the flag of Mexico is allowed to be paraded in our streets in some states. 

 

This is becoming ridiculous banning or removing anything some find distastful.  In that case the United States flag should be banned because it represents a period of our history when certain races were held as slaves.  It is not only the South where their was not slavery or being financially supported.

 

Such hypocrisy!!!!

0 Kudos
318 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Oh, but the supposed 'conservatives' would squeal, saying that it is of a Marxist nature to infringe on their 'freedom of speech'. Little would they realize that they would be the Marxists assisting the Neo-Nazis in gaining a stronger foothold.


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

ChasKy53:  Oh, but the supposed 'conservatives' would squeal, saying that it is of a Marxist nature to infringe on their 'freedom of speech'. Little would they realize that they would be the Marxists assisting the Neo-Nazis in gaining a stronger foothold.

 

I think they just instinctively protect their own.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Panjandrum wrote:

ChasKy53:  Oh, but the supposed 'conservatives' would squeal, saying that it is of a Marxist nature to infringe on their 'freedom of speech'. Little would they realize that they would be the Marxists assisting the Neo-Nazis in gaining a stronger foothold.

 

I think they just instinctively protect their own.


If by "their own" you mean their own Constitution and the rights it guarantees to all Americans - I'd say you are right.

Honored Social Butterfly

 


@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

ChasKy53:  Oh, but the supposed 'conservatives' would squeal, saying that it is of a Marxist nature to infringe on their 'freedom of speech'. Little would they realize that they would be the Marxists assisting the Neo-Nazis in gaining a stronger foothold.

 

I think they just instinctively protect their own.


If by "their own" you mean their own Constitution and the rights it guarantees to all Americans - I'd say you are right.


So - does the Constitution grant those who disagree with white supremacists, Alt-Right, KKK racists and Nazis - the Constitutional right to assemble and counter demonstrate and call those on the right dead wrong and unpatriotic americans and so forth - Constitutional freedom of speech being absolutely the same for both sides and all?

 

Is the Nazi flag and all Nazi sybolism good healthy pro American stuff - or is it subsersive anti-American stuff?

 

Yes dearie. you are being required to make a choice and say which it is...

 

44>dolt45
Honored Social Butterfly


@alferdpacker wrote:

 


@rk9152 wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

ChasKy53:  Oh, but the supposed 'conservatives' would squeal, saying that it is of a Marxist nature to infringe on their 'freedom of speech'. Little would they realize that they would be the Marxists assisting the Neo-Nazis in gaining a stronger foothold.

 

I think they just instinctively protect their own.


If by "their own" you mean their own Constitution and the rights it guarantees to all Americans - I'd say you are right.


So - does the Constitution grant those who disagree with white supremacists, Alt-Right, KKK racists and Nazis - the Constitutional right to assemble and counter demonstrate and call those on the right dead wrong and unpatriotic americans and so forth - Constitutional freedom of speech being absolutely the same for both sides and all?

 

Is the Nazi flag and all Nazi sybolism good healthy pro American stuff - or is it subsersive anti-American stuff?

 

Yes dearie. you are being required to make a choice and say which it is...

 


None of the above. It is just like so many other symbols, black power, wobblies, CPUSA, the Democratic Party - all unhealthy but protected by our Constitution which is strong enough to handle the wackiness.

0 Kudos
251 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

Oh, but the supposed 'conservatives' would squeal, saying that it is of a Marxist nature to infringe on their 'freedom of speech'. Little would they realize that they would be the Marxists assisting the Neo-Nazis in gaining a stronger foothold.


Neo-Nazis are not being supported by the Conservatives. The Constitution is being supported by the Conservatives.

 

On the other hand, the weekend reenactors are getting lot of support from the neoMarxists of the media by giving them the attention they so sorely desire. And they are forming a "mutual admiration society" with the anarchists of the left as each gives the other their "cause".

Recognized Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

Oh, but the supposed 'conservatives' would squeal, saying that it is of a Marxist nature to infringe on their 'freedom of speech'. Little would they realize that they would be the Marxists assisting the Neo-Nazis in gaining a stronger foothold.


Freedom of speech works both ways and if I don't like what you have to say, I have the freedom to tell you that. In a free society, evil should not go unchallenged.  If you do not challenge it, you are supporting it and the messages they are delivering.  Challenging their hate speech and pointing out how stupid they are is a right we have.  It is also time for people to realize that by supporting these groups (Nazis, KKK, etc) they are supporting terrorists who are trying to destroy our way of life.

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