Agreed. What they don't have is the right to carry firearms at the same time. That implies a threat of violence.
Dave
Staff member
See, they DO have that right if they are in a place that has open carry. It's stupid and yes, it screams implied threat, but it's completely legal and they should be allowed to do such.
Having said that, if BLM did the same thing the police would lose their collective shit - as would the right.
I mean, if you're talking about Canadians, you'd be right, but I don't remember your 2nd Ammendment saying ". . . but not in public protest marches" (not even something like that but in more archaic English)
Huh. Michael Che might have to apologize for calling Boston the most racist city he's ever been to.
I think you have to look to the Deep South for that. Where a single six year old girl could be considered an existential threat. That is only supposed to happen in fantasy novels, RPGs, and anime.
The ACLU will no longer defend hate groups that attend protests while armed, based on the implied threat, largely because they had a hand in making Charlottesville happen.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...lu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns/
Dave
Staff member
Doesn't make it illegal. Just means that the ACLU are exercising their right to not lift a finger to help them. To me, this is kinda troubling and will make it harder for the ACLU to look neutral.
I wonder about the reporting on this.
That is, I'm guessing the ACLU is actually saying "We're not gonna support people who protest while armed" and it's getting reported as this applying only to these groups.
Dave
Staff member
Don't know. Right now the big thing is "punch a nazi" and the like and that's the way that these kinds of things are being reported. I have several liberal friends who are perfectly fine with this. I disagree. Punching someone for their beliefs no matter how fucked up they are is not something I can comfortably condone.
Depends greatly on city/state ordinances and the letter of the law. If the open carry DOESN'T have a provision for protesting groups, that's on the idiot politicians.
Dave
Staff member
Correct. But if there's nothing there, they've done nothing wrong even if they are nazi scum. If we judge any other way we set ourselves up for a future time when it's unlawful to protest because of other factors.
Zappit
Staff member
They are idiots.
They are the scum of the earth.
They are anathema to American ideals.
They still have the same rights as any other American.
However, they do not have immunity from criticism for their actions. If businesses want to fire them, fine. There's not many businesses that want a Nazi, KKK member, or white nationalist on staff.
They are not immune from being identified. They're in a public space making a public statement. They own it, along with the consequences it brings.
They are the scum of the earth.
They are anathema to American ideals.
They still have the same rights as any other American.
However, they do not have immunity from criticism for their actions. If businesses want to fire them, fine. There's not many businesses that want a Nazi, KKK member, or white nationalist on staff.
They are not immune from being identified. They're in a public space making a public statement. They own it, along with the consequences it brings.
Punching someone who literally wants you dead? I'd almost call that getting off lightly.
Dave
Staff member
So you're fine with punching someone who wishes you dead but has done nothing? Does that mean because I'm a white man I'm justified going up and punching a woman who is a feminist and posts something about how all men must die?
No. Since that ain't feminism she was obviously just making a joke post.
Unless you think you're justified in punching me for my Halforums activity. Oh god, y'all are gonna storm Ontario and beat me up aren't you? Monsters!
It doesn't and you know it. But if you want to go there, tell me how many deaths can be laid at the feet of the feminist movement? I'm certain the nazis have whatever number it is beat by several million.
Today's nazis go in with the full knowledge of those millions of dead at their predecessors hands, and willingly accept it. Nope. the best they'll get from me is spit in the face.
Dave
Staff member
DA, it does not matter. You are literally contradicting yourself and saying "if you believe X then it's fine to assault you and silence you, but if you believe X then you should be protected." That's not how free speech works. If I were so inclined, I could (should be able to) go stand on a soapbox and say the dumbest, evilist things as long as I don't incite violence or attempt to get others to incite violence on my part.
Yes, it sucks, but the First Amendment protects the nazis and their march. And yes, the Second Amendment protects their rights to open carry weapons (if the local laws allow it).
That's it. It's pretty cut & dried. Everything else is emotional and irrational posturing.
Yes, it sucks, but the First Amendment protects the nazis and their march. And yes, the Second Amendment protects their rights to open carry weapons (if the local laws allow it).
That's it. It's pretty cut & dried. Everything else is emotional and irrational posturing.
I would, but the Atlantic Ocean is in the way. Have a brofist (as the closest thing we've go to a punching icon) instead.
Hey, if it was good enough for Captain America...
I believe the rule is that after they set up and use death camps, then it's open season on punching...
Also, that's racists, if she's threatening all men, you can punch her even if you're not white... duh.
The First Amendment only goes as far as keeping the police from arresting you for what you're saying. Beyond that, you're on your own. There is no constitutional right to freedom from consequences from anyone else. Punching a nazi might fall under assault, but that's it. And there's a shitload of mitigating circumstances.
Are you prepared to get punched in the mouth for goose stepping up and down my street screaming "kill the Jews?" And am I willing to face charges if I punched you in the mouth for doing so? Who is the district attorney going to favor?
Dave
Staff member
You absolutely should be safe from assault, just as a woman who is dressed sluttily should be free from fear or assault or rape. No matter what you do you should be free from the illegal actions of others.
And the district attorney SHOULD favor the person who was attacked. If that's a nazi, then so be it.[DOUBLEPOST=1503178842,1503178797][/DOUBLEPOST]Ever heard the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"? This is exactly what it means.
And the district attorney SHOULD favor the person who was attacked. If that's a nazi, then so be it.[DOUBLEPOST=1503178842,1503178797][/DOUBLEPOST]Ever heard the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"? This is exactly what it means.
I'd save so much money
Hey Dave, where does this fit into places where there's such a thing as "fighting words" on the books, where a person who is verbally provoked into physical action is not considered in the wrong?
Dave
Staff member
That's actually a very interesting question that I can't even begin to think I'm an expert on. But in reading legal briefs on it and a very detailed analysis (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/fighting-words/) it looks like this still protects people from prosecution from saying certain things by the government, not that it's okay to attack or assault someone for saying certain things.
Dave
Staff member
And that's where the whole "not free from consequences" comes in. I'm all for these people paying a price for their horrible beliefs. Just not assault or government persecution. Unless they want to charge them under the "fighting words" statute, but that's hard to prove and takes a lot of dollars to defend.
In the case of the military, there's a matter of unit cohesion and security clearances to consider, to name just a couple. If word got out that the guy standing next to you at quarters was marching with the nazis, are you sure they'd have your back? Would you have theirs? If one of those guys is under your command, what do you do?
This answers much of what you're asking: Neo-Nazis excluded from service by policy, but concerns persist.
figmentPez
Staff member
They don't have the right to yell any fool thing they want. Free speech has limits. They can't promote the imminent execution of a crime. Carrying guns while shouting for the death of people is getting really close to the line of incitement. I don't know if it's over that line or not, but it is illegal to encourage people to immediately commit violence or other illegal activities.
They also can't say any number of things that are commercial in nature, because freedom of speech primarily protects political speech, and that leads me to my next point:
I think the law needs to rexamine if the Nazi flag should be protected under free speech. I realize that it's important to allow people to promote ideals that are currently against the law (everything from saying that marijuana should be legal, to saying copyright needs to be changed, to promoting sit-ins and other civil disobedience). However, there's a difference between proposing that laws should be changed because they're imperfect and don't reflect what we want to have as our laws; and saying that something fundamentally unethical/immoral should be accepted. The Nazi flag is a symbol of genocide. Central to the idea of the Nazi regime is the subjugation and murder of groups of people. It goes beyond saying that certain groups are to be hated, or rejected. It says that people who have inalienable rights under the laws of the United States should be put to death without committing any crime. How can we accept this as valid political speech, if it's not considered a valid political viewpoint? It is fundamentally counter to the moral and ethical basis of our legal and judicial system to promote the idea that anyone should be put to death simply because of their race, creed, gender, etc. (I realize that our history littered with hypocrisy on this matter, but that doesn't change the aims of the system.)
This isn't a matter of ideas merely being offensive. These ideas are fundamentally incompatible with the basis of our government. I realize that free speech comes higher in the list of amendments than "shall not be deprived of life..." but it has no greater importance. Free speech is not inhibited when the government legislates commercial speech. Making laws that restrict tobacco advertising is possible because selling cigarettes isn't a political stance. Saying that "smoking Camels makes you cool" isn't protected because it has nothing to do with exercising free speech, and quite frankly I don't see how the Nazi flag has anything more to do with valid political positions than Joe Camel does.
Last edited:
I...don't know if that's going to pass the test of whether it's also permissible to lobby for capital punishment. Holding a rally supporting capital punishment would be the embodiment of calling for the literal murder of an unknowable number of fellow human beings. And since it has been established that such a rally would be legal, I don't know that a court could find that it's ok to demonstrate in support of the killing of people BUT only certain selected groups. Mind you I'm not talking about the legality of the killing, itself, but rather the right to demonstrate/lobby about it.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
False equivalency. Capital punishiment is about the guilty. Those who have committed heinous crimes and have been judged by a court and found guilty via due process. Arguing if they should be deprived of just their liberty, or if their life should be forfeit as well, is not the same type of thing as arguing that those innocent of any crime should be deprived of their life or liberty simply because of the condition of their birth.