Freedom of Speech (did I miss something?)

[Taem]

So I'm fairly certain everyone has already heard about what happened in Charlottesville and ensuing explosion of reaction from the press. Without judging or taking any sides, here is the POV from people who were at the event quoted from ALL sides:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-char...story.html

The clashes that broke out over the weekend at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., have become a new touchstone in the nation’s long-running debate over racism, free speech and violence.

One woman was killed and many more injured when a car, allegedly driven by a rally participant, sped into a crowd of anti-racism protesters. Two state troopers monitoring the action died in a helicopter crash later in the day, though no foul play was suspected.

The event quickly took on enormous political importance as Democrats and Republicans alike denounced the violence and the white supremacist views espoused at the far-right rally. President Trump has also denounced the racist groups, but he suggests that anti-racism counter-demonstrators share some of the blame. On Tuesday, he said “both sides” were responsible for the bloodshed.

White supremacists and counter protesters clash in Charlottesville on Saturday.
White supremacists and counter protesters clash in Charlottesville on Saturday. (Michael Nigro / Pacific Press)
What actually happened?

Here are several first-hand accounts of Saturday’s events in Charlottesville, collected from journalists, protesters and far-right ralliers who have published their accounts of what they saw that day.

Charlottesville Daily Progress photographer Ryan Kelly: “I hitched a ride with my editor downtown, and I started wandering the mall. There were groups on both sides scattered. There were a few small fights that broke out from time to time. People were throwing stuff at each other. A few people were beating on each other.”

BuzzFeed News reporter Blake Montgomery: “Most white supremacist and Nazi groups arrived armed like a paramilitary force — carrying shields, protective gear, rods and, yes, lots of guns, utilizing Virginia’s loose firearm laws. They used militarized defensive maneuvers, shouting commands at one another to ‘move forward’ or ‘retreat,’ and would form a line of shields or a phalanx — it’s like they watched ‘300’ a few times — to gain ground or shepherd someone through projectiles. It seemed that they had practiced for this.”

White nationalist rally in Virginia turns deadly
Hunter Wallace, a far-right blogger at Occidental Dissent: “The streets were not barricaded. Violent antifa [anti-fascists] were not penned in their own area as per our agreement with the Charlottesville Police Department, but were roaming the streets and blocking the entrance to Lee Park. They immediately launched an attack on our group with mace, pepper spray, bricks, sticks and foul liquids. The police stood idly by on the sidelines while a brawl was allowed to ensue. We had to fight our way into Lee Park and dozens of our people were injured by mace and pepper spray as we marched through the gauntlet.”

“Marcus Cicero,” another far-right blogger at Occidental Dissent: “Now, to begin Saturday’s rally, the League of the South assembled at an area only a few blocks from Lee Park – I myself was one of the shield men. As we advanced down the street toward the park, I immediately noticed a horde of Antifa, BLM terrorists, and other assorted genetic refuse ready and willing to block the street leading up to our destination.”

Matt Parrott of Traditionalist Youth Network, a white supremacist group: “With a full-throated rebel yell, the League broke through the wall of degenerates and TradWorker managed to enter the Lee Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling. Michael Tubbs, an especially imposing League organizer towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as league fighters with shields put their training to work.”

Washington Post reporter Joe Heim: “Counter-protesters fought back, also swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals. Others threw balloons filled with paint or ink at the white nationalists. Everywhere, it seemed violence was exploding. The police did not move to break up the fights.”


Follow
Daniel Shular @xshularx
Big fight breaks out as whit supremacists move into park, followed by lots of pepper spray #DefendCVille #AltRight #unitetheright
8:12 AM - Aug 12, 2017 · Charlottesville, VA
28 28 Replies 192 192 Retweets 144 144 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Unicorn Riot, a left-leaning news outlet that covers protests around the nation:


Follow
Unicorn Riot @UR_Ninja
Trump just said antifa started fight on sat by "charging in swinging clubs" at racists. Video shows the opposite
2:13 PM - Aug 15, 2017
264 264 Replies 4,278 4,278 Retweets 3,910 3,910 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Washington Post reporter Joe Heim: “Although Virginia State Police and Charlottesville police were stationed along the sides and the rear of Emancipation Park, the Market Street side was unattended. As it filled with rally-goers and counter-protesters, the mix quickly became volatile. The two sides screamed at each other. ‘[Expletive] … Nazis!’ the counter-protesters chanted. ‘[More expletives]’ was the response from the park where the rally-goers stood behind metal barricades.”

Jordan Green in the Nation, a leftist publication: “A phalanx of black-helmeted white supremacists — members of the Traditionalist Workers Party, Identity Evropa, American Vanguard, and other hate warriors — commanded the steps at the southeast corner of the park, repelling attempted incursions by Wobblies, communists, and a multiracial cast of irregulars eager to fight back. Water bottles and other projectiles flew in both directions, while police tear-gas canisters thudded into an adjacent parking lot, oftentimes lobbed back into the park by plucky leftists.”

Unicorn Riot: “Police then pushed the white supremacists out of Emancipation Park, and closed the park.... Unable to continue rallying in the park, the white supremacists took to the streets, where they were quickly followed and confronted by anti-racists. Several more extremely violent fights took place, with police looking on from their nearby substation.”

BuzzFeed News reporter Blake Montgomery: “The opposition was largely winging it, preferring to establish bases in other parks with water, coffee, food, first aid and comfort. Conflict would start much the same as it has at other alt-right rallies: two people, one from each side, screaming, goading each other into throwing the first punch.”

Trump: Nation's culture being 'ripped apart' by removal of Confederate monuments
Redneck Revolt, an armed leftist group that brought rifles to Justice Park, one of the spots where anti-racist groups had gathered: “At many points during the day, groups of white supremacists approached Justice Park, but at each instance, Redneck Revolt members formed a unified skirmish line against them, and the white supremacists backed down. Most of the groups were not easily identified, but at separate points, contingents from Identity Evropa and the Proud Boys were recognized. The groups that threatened the park yelled racial and homophobic slurs.”

University of Virginia student Isabella Ciambotti: “I was on Market Street around 11:30 a.m. when a counter-protester ripped a newspaper stand off the sidewalk and threw it at alt-right protesters. I saw another man from the white supremacist crowd being chased and beaten. People were hitting him with their signs. A much older man, also with the alt-right group, got pushed to the ground in the commotion. Someone raised a stick over his head and beat the man with it, and that’s when I screamed and ran over with several other strangers to help him to his feet.”

Get the latest news on California, national politics and the world »

Leftist anti-fascist organizers from Washington, D.C.: “Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform. They were on the move toward a community with many people of color. We mobilized to intercept. We were at our most powerful, all of us together chanting with enthusiastic support from the people of Charlottesville. That was the moment that we were attacked.”

Los Angeles Times account of the car attack by special correspondent Robert Armengol in Charlottesville: By early afternoon, hundreds of counter-protesters had amassed two blocks south of Emancipation Park, in downtown Charlottesville. They began marching down the middle of Water Street, near the city’s pedestrian mall. The white nationalists, for the time being, seemed to have dispersed. Some of the armed militia members had just driven away in vans and pickup trucks.

The crowd was jubilant. Demonstrators waved flags calling for solidarity and they chanted anti-racist slogans, declaring, “Whose streets? Our streets!” and “Black lives matter!” They hooted, played on drums and blew horns. One man dressed in a clown suit with rainbow-colored suspenders held aloft a poster that read, simply, “SHAME.”

A police helicopter flew overhead in the clear sky. It was about 2 p.m.

At East Fourth Street, the crowd veered left and headed back toward the Main Street mall, up a slight incline on a narrow one-lane road, flanked on either side by commercial buildings. The front of the march had advanced less than half a block before a gray sports car appeared, moving south toward the demonstrators.

The car and its driver, hidden behind tinted windows, advanced slowly at first. [Police have since identified the driver as James A. Fields, 20, of Ohio, who was previously seen marching with Vanguard America, a fascist group.] Then, just a few feet in front of protesters, the vehicle accelerated suddenly, plowing into at least a dozen people in a gut-wrenching crash, sending bodies, shoes and personal belongings flying through the air.

Victims cried out in pain while onlookers howled in shock and ran from the scene, yelling for medical help. “Oh my God,” someone screamed. “He mowed down everybody.”

Within seconds, the sports car, its front-end mangled, changed course and screeched backward up the street, disappearing around a corner at the next block up as a bystander yelled, “Get off the street! Get off the street!”

Charlottesville Daily Progress photographer Ryan Kelly: “If that car had come through 20 seconds earlier, I would have been in the middle of the road, and I would have had my back to him. I wouldn’t have seen him coming at all. Honestly, I’m still processing that. It’s been such a crazy 24 hours that I haven’t been able to sit and absorb it. That was the first thing that went through my head a couple hours after I was done processing images. I was right where the car went, and I am very fortunate.”

From I'm reading, it says to me there were several factions who resorted to violence, from the hateful neo-nazis and BLM panthers alike, to anti-racist protesters. Disregarding racism as a factor for a moment, it's clear that simply none of the parties involved acted in accordance with a law abiding assembly and that all factions involved in the violence should be condemned (bravo president Trump for standing up to the idiot white apologists). However the vitriol is strong against the hate groups (for some reason more aligned against the neo-nazis than the panthers, but that's NOT where I'm headed with this logic), enough to say that they should be condemned, repressed and stopped. This is all over the news and apparently the opinions of the mass. What exactly does that mean when you oppress peoples freedom of speech here in the US? Is "hate" speech any different than anti-government speech, another form of hate? Suppose we pass a law outlawing hate speech, when do the politicians use that to control exactly what we say in public, when it opposes them? I think hate groups should be eradicated like the vermin they are, rather they are white or black nationals, I could care less of the color of their skin; racists are all mal-aligned idealists who should be jailed along with molesters and those of the worst stripe. But at what cost? At what point do we realize that in our attempt to squash hate speech, we've destroyed our own freedoms? I fear this is where the country is headed.

[FireIceTalon]

Is "hate" speech any different than anti-government speech, another form of hate

Anti-government speech is not the same thing as hate speech. They aren't even in the same ballpark. The differences should be blatantly obvious to any person who has even a sliver of functional grey matter upstairs.

[Archon_Wing]

The government is an entity, so is diffrent from groups of people. Nobody would consider me bashing parking meters as hate speech.

The government also represents people , such as myself, so I certainly have a right to offer my opinion on it.

You can't compare that to groups that have encouraged and participated in violence, of which they have only stopped due to fear of the laws enacted to stop them and preach the extermination or subjugation of lesser races.

I mean saying Hitler should have finished your family off, is a bit more threatening than calling you a noob. In particular, if they propose to push that related ideology

They have their first amendment rights, but so do the people that oppose them. And should they use anything other than assembly, then well, they deserve everything they get.

[Taem]

The government is an entity, so is diffrent from groups of people. Nobody would consider me bashing parking meters as hate speech.

The government also represents people , such as myself, so I certainly have a right to offee my opinion on it.

You can't compare that to groups that have encouraged and participated in violence, of which they have only stopped due to fear of the laws enacted to stop them and preach the extermination or subjugation of lesser races.

I'm in no way at all defending those who preech hate speech, nor do I disagree with those who condemn them. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of 'that' road once we step foot on the path of censorship and squashing our liberties. In regards to the government, I'd also hold the police of Charlottesville responsible for allowing the fights to happen and the aggressive nature of the gathering to become what it became. They should fac consequences for their inaction, which in this case was just as deadly than if they participated in the chaos; the are the fourth unnamed party in all of this whom, incidently, work for the government.

[Archon_Wing]

Wasn't suggesting you were but it is a slippery slipe fallacy. Whatever line has to be arbitrarily drawn and few would argue this isn't.

Yes the police should have known better but individuals were also dumb for pretending to not know what would happen.

[Taem]

Is "hate" speech any different than anti-government speech, another form of hate

Anti-government speech is not the same thing as hate speech. They aren't even in the same ballpark. The differences should be blatantly obvious to any person who has even a sliver of functional grey matter upstairs.

Of course it isn't, however that was not the actual question. The TV and internet are on absolute fire over this to a degree I haven't seen since 9/11 occurred. There was swift action then which gave birth to what is now Homeland Security. What kind of language do you think would be in an anti-hate speech bill exactly? You want to say it's [hate speech] about putting down a specific sect of individuals based on their skin color, age, race, sexual orientation, etc., fine, however there are so many gray areas and matters of perspective between those lines, it's pretty much guaranteed to be an abused one way or the other, not to mention completely violates our freedom of speech. I can't wait to see Carrot Top or Kathy Griffin arrested mid-skit for saying inflammatory remarks <sarcasm>.

But to flip the coin on it's head here, as I said to Archon_Wing, the police are also culpable suspects in this meltdown whom reacted entirely too late for reasons only they will ever know. However, I'd like to point out here that they are in fact an entity of their own. If a law passed to protect against hate speech, do you honestly think the police wouldn't be included? You constantly hear people verbally bashing the police with such eloquent expressions as, "fuck you piggy," and other much more colorful phrases. Think long and hard about who new censorship laws would actually protect, and what would be lost in the process. Do you really think new rules would be restricted to lawful assembly of people? Groups [someone personally] deems as offending one of the protected classes? Or would it just be a blanket law?

I'm curious to see how this all plays out.

[Occhidiangela]

The KKK and other White Nationalists have been making legally and Constitutionally protected marches/free speech events for decades. You are allowed free speech in this country under the Constitution, even if you are an a55hat. That you or I disagree with the opinion of any group who marches in a public demonstration does not remove the protection. The decision to start a riot was made by the antifa folks, who are passionate about what they do, and the decision to not do their job was done by the law enforcement locally.

I live in Texas, and now and again the KKK does one of those annoying marches, with permits and all that. Trolls. That's what they are.
The cops make sure people see the uniformed presence. Any who wants to play shenanigans is on notice.

I was part of a peaceful counter protest against a permitted PhelpsWBC event some years ago. The cops were visibly present and all sides were rude to each other and nobody started a fight.
Whomever in Virginia decided to "let 'em play" in the immortal words of Dan Dierdorf (MNF) is a (censored)ing irresponsible git.

By the way, if you are interested, and not just here to spout polemics, Robert E Lee was on record, while alive, as being against monuments being built to the Confederacy. Business Insider, online, has an interesting article with quotes from a Lee biographer on that point. Read it and ponder on what kind of trouble makers were out there making trouble in the first place, and in the second place.
Well, they found it, but actually, they made it.
PS: don't ask me for a link. If you are too lazy to figure it out, that's on you.

[FireIceTalon]

Is "hate" speech any different than anti-government speech, another form of hate

Anti-government speech is not the same thing as hate speech. They aren't even in the same ballpark. The differences should be blatantly obvious to any person who has even a sliver of functional grey matter upstairs.

Of course it isn't, however that was not the actual question. The TV and internet are on absolute fire over this to a degree I haven't seen since 9/11 occurred. There was swift action then which gave birth to what is now Homeland Security. What kind of language do you think would be in an anti-hate speech bill exactly? You want to say it's [hate speech] about putting down a specific sect of individuals based on their skin color, age, race, sexual orientation, etc., fine, however there are so many gray areas and matters of perspective between those lines, it's pretty much guaranteed to be an abused one way or the other, not to mention completely violates our freedom of speech. I can't wait to see Carrot Top or Kathy Griffin arrested mid-skit for saying inflammatory remarks <sarcasm>.

But to flip the coin on it's head here, as I said to Archon_Wing, the police are also culpable suspects in this meltdown whom reacted entirely too late for reasons only they will ever know. However, I'd like to point out here that they are in fact an entity of their own. If a law passed to protect against hate speech, do you honestly think the police wouldn't be included? You constantly hear people verbally bashing the police with such eloquent expressions as, "fuck you piggy," and other much more colorful phrases. Think long and hard about who new censorship laws would actually protect, and what would be lost in the process. Do you really think new rules would be restricted to lawful assembly of people? Groups [someone personally] deems as offending one of the protected classes? Or would it just be a blanket law?

I'm curious to see how this all plays out.

Ever seen cops join sides with protesters (peaceful or otherwise)? Yea, me neither.

Cops are bastards and already have way too much protection and power as it is now. They get called "pigs"? So what. Many if not most cops deserve much worse. They are a largely corrupt and racist organization hell bent on oppressing working class people (especially POC) any opportunity they get. They get called "pigs" and other names because of the atrocities and human rights violations they commit against minorities and poor people every single day.

The abuses of the police are so obvious and external that it might seem like they're the exception - but they aren't the exception - they are indeed the rule. In the US, cops are often given quotas that they must reach, like X amount of stops and searches per week or whatever. Often they are given incentives if they are successful in finding illegal substances through these stops and searches so it leads to a culture within the police of not giving a shit whether or not they are being assholes since they just have to reach their quotas. They're also not trained to try and diffuse situations but rather to escalate at the first opportunity which is why you have so many police shootings that seem so ridiculous.

Cops are not the victims. They are sociopathic predators and terrorists; and protectors of private property and ruling class interests.

As for censorship laws, well, I don't really concern myself too much with bourgeois law, since well....the quote in my signature sums it up nicely. As I've said in the past, free speech is a rather meaningless concept for a multitude of reasons - firstly, because speech has causation. You cannot say just whatever you want, and there isn't going to be consequences. Secondly, most of the time these days, its used as a shield used by various hate groups to give themselves a platform and safe space to express their hateful, violent, and deplorable views. White nationalists and fascists should NEVER be allowed a platform of any sort, under any circumstances. Whether their speech is protected by law or not is entirely irrelevant - if you go around saying how much you hate women, minorities, and poor people - expect consequences.

[Bolty]

[kandrathe]

Wasn't suggesting you were but it is a slippery slipe fallacy. Whatever line has to be arbitrarily drawn and few would argue this isn't.

Yes the police should have known better but individuals were also dumb for pretending to not know what would happen.

I remember a KKK rally march from the 60's. I was a kid, but they marched , spewed their hate and no one I knew liked it happening... but, at the end of it... I thought to myself, America is kind of a great place, where even if you are reprehensible, you have basic rights of assembly, and speech. The march and vitriol they vomitted were forgettable. But, I remember they had the rights to do it.

[Taem]

Why thank you, I never used or heard that word, 'git', before, perhaps because it's British in origin and usage. Anyway, always a pleasure to hear your POV.

I did in fact read up on Robert E. Lees POV on monuments and laughed at the irony of it. I guess those more influential than him in the South wanted to erect them, despite his insistence they'd only make it harder to overcome the outcome of the civil war. Here's a fun link from a neutral news site for those interested: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robe...monuments/ . The troublemakers of today, the morons of tomorrow; I suppose the mentality of that era hasn't changed that much for some people.

[kandrathe]

Why thank you, I never used or heard that word, 'git', before, perhaps because it's British in origin and usage. Anyway, always a pleasure to hear your POV.

I did in fact read up on Robert E. Lees POV on monuments and laughed at the irony of it. I guess those more influential than him in the South wanted to erect them, despite his insistence they'd only make it harder to overcome the outcome of the civil war. Here's a fun link from a neutral news site for those interested: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robe...monuments/ . The troublemakers of today, the morons of tomorrow; I suppose the mentality of that era hasn't changed that much for some people.

What antifa and ilk don't understand, is that like ISIS, the more you fight against them violently, the more justified they become in recruiting. I believe in fighting bad ideas with the light of truth. If they advocate violence, in anyway to support their beliefs, I'm not with them, and I think they've lost any shred of morality for their position. In the USA, for better or worse, we believe in the freedom of thought. Even the wrong ones. We will not stop a bad idea by riots in Charlottesville, or civil wars in Syria.

[eppie]

I remember a KKK rally march from the 60's. I was a kid, but they marched , spewed their hate and no one I knew liked it happening... but, at the end of it... I thought to myself, America is kind of a great place, where even if you are reprehensible, you have basic rights of assembly, and speech. The march and vitriol they vomitted were forgettable. But, I remember they had the rights to do it.

Well, I beg to differ.
In the 60`s in the US they also still used to drag black people behind a car, and it was in the south somehow accepted.....partly because those KKK types had some legitimacy because they were allowed to protest.

Freedom of speech stops when you use it to threaten and to support violence against certain groups. The US always had a problem understanding what freedom of speech exactly implies.

[FireIceTalon]

Freedom of speech stops when you use it to threaten and to support violence against certain groups. The US always had a problem understanding what freedom of speech exactly implies.

Basics.

If you aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, then you sure as hell cannot and should not be allowed to promote violence and oppression against other persons based on skin color/race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. I have no idea why this is so difficult for so many people to understand, especially Americans. To me, it makes absolute sense. The freedom to oppress, harass, and discriminate is not freedom AT ALL and has nothing to do with the very concept. Hate speech is not free speech, and in fact, is a form of violence because it is weaponized.

[FireIceTalon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seat...c593e53b45

Absolutely hilarious on so many levels.

[kandrathe]

I remember a KKK rally march from the 60's. I was a kid, but they marched , spewed their hate and no one I knew liked it happening... but, at the end of it... I thought to myself, America is kind of a great place, where even if you are reprehensible, you have basic rights of assembly, and speech. The march and vitriol they vomitted were forgettable. But, I remember they had the rights to do it.

Well, I beg to differ.
In the 60`s in the US they also still used to drag black people behind a car, and it was in the south somehow accepted.....partly because those KKK types had some legitimacy because they were allowed to protest.

Freedom of speech stops when you use it to threaten and to support violence against certain groups. The US always had a problem understanding what freedom of speech exactly implies.

That is the consequence of using your freedom to commit a crime. I was a kid, so I was not inundated with violent news. But, in case I missed something, please enlighten me of all the dragging deaths in the sixties I missed. There was a case in 1998, where three white guys were convicted. But, I'm sure there were plenty of events that occurred that didn't make the newspaper.

I don't see we have a problem with our freedom. It is illegal to threaten harm,

Illegal threats include threats to do bodily harm, threaten to destroy property, or threats to do anything “which is maliciously intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety.” Either immediately or in the future.

[Archon_Wing]

I do too. But as unfair as it is, when you present yourself in public, people will react in a certain way though certainly laws and stuff.

[kandrathe]

Freedom of speech stops when you use it to threaten and to support violence against certain groups. The US always had a problem understanding what freedom of speech exactly implies.

Basics.

If you aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, then you sure as hell cannot and should not be allowed to promote violence and oppression against other persons based on skin color/race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. I have no idea why this is so difficult for so many people to understand, especially Americans. To me, it makes absolute sense. The freedom to oppress, harass, and discriminate is not freedom AT ALL and has nothing to do with the very concept. Hate speech is not free speech, and in fact, is a form of violence because it is weaponized.

Actual Basics.

Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States said "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The "falsely" is what’s doing the work, both in Justice Holmes’s hypothetical, and in how such a false shout would be treated by First Amendment law today. You can shout "Fire" in a movie theater if there is indeed a fire, but if... say more people were trampled to death in the panic than were saved by exiting the fire, you may be civilly liable for causing the panic.

But, still, it is odd you side with OWH on a decision he later walked back..."Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war."

The assertion you make, "you sure as hell cannot and should not be allowed to promote violence and oppression against other persons based on skin color/race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc." is in fact protected political speech (except the violence against a named person).

But, yes, as horrible as freedom is, you can advocate for the extermination of all ______. There are hateful ideas, and hateful opinions, but they don't become criminal until you commit a crime, or incite others to commit a crime. I *DO* think these violent groups could be prosecuted under RICO if there was premeditated planning to commit violence. That would be a conspiracy to commit a crime.

It was just reaffirmed last June, in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
Justice Samuel Alito writes in this unanimous decision: [The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Possibly there may be some provisions for §1983 protection under the KKK act for terrorizing protected classes; http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...x+Klan+Act

"Section 1 of the act covered enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment and was later codified, in part, at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Section 2 of the act, codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3), provided civil and criminal penalties intended to deal with conspiratorial violence of the kind practiced by the Klan. Both sections of the act were intended to give federal protection to Fourteenth Amendment rights that were regularly being violated by private individuals as opposed to the state.

It's never been an easy decision to determine who gets to exercise free speech in the US, like this ACLU pamphlet from 1934 discussing US Nazi's speech rights. But, somehow we've survived even allowing the most hateful donkeys to make asses of themselves.

[Archon_Wing]

So, what do you think of private businesses and individuals taking action against these people? Such as firing people or refusing to do business with them over these beliefs? I mean it does make sense for a business to not want to associate with those people. As well as ostracization and shame?

I mean, the 1st amendment only applies to the government restricting free speech, right?

Though it does seem like a solid counter protest seems to do best to drown out the noise. The Patriot Guard Riders seem to have done a good job protecting people from the WBC and no violence has really occurred because of it.

[FireIceTalon]

Allowing free speech for white nationalists and Nazi types does NOT lead to free speech for all, but as material reality has proven ever so many times, rather LESS free speech and MORE violence. I've said it time and again - white nationalists should NOT have a platform for their views, because the consequences of doing so lead to more violence for everyone else. The poor woman who lost her life in Charlottesville to some nazi terrorist is but one in countless events that prove this fact. This article hits the nail on the head:

https://qz.com/1053957/charlottesville-n...-fascists/

Free speech absolutism is a faith.

So, sorry if I can't get down with the idealism of absolute free speech. Real world material realities simply prevent me from doing this, much in the same way the same material world realities lead me to conclude that there is indeed no higher deity watching our every move, and as a result I'm an atheist. I'm grounded in reality, not bourgeois idealistic fantasies. As stated in the article, you can make the most logical, articulate, and cohesive argument ever written for the concept of absolute free speech being one of the foundations to a fair and just society, but it STILL does not pan out in the real world.

But, somehow we've survived even allowing the most hateful donkeys to make asses of themselves.

Red herring. Just because the human race hasn't gone extinct because of said hateful views doesn't make them any less deplorable or any more excusable; or that they should not be challenged and censored. Many people have and still do die and suffer in a multitude of ways because of these views and rotten ideas that we say they should be allowed to express, regardless of how shitty they are. I'm sorry, you will never get me on board with this, cause again, free speech absolutism is an idealistic fantasy grounded in libertopia. Allowing free speech for nazis or white nationalists is politically an untenable position both morally and pragmatically.