First they came for the anti-fascists

[Jarhyn]

I've already explained the dividing line in current law. Abstract calls to violence are protected speech. For incitement to apply there must be a reasonable belief the violence being called for is imminent and likely.

So you can say "somebody ought to punch Trump". You can't punch someone for wearing a MAGA hat because you think he's inciting violence.

Note these tests have been applied to protect both the rights of KKK members and Viet Nam war protestors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana

Everyone here seems to be of the opinion that if violence against speech gets sanctioned they will be the ones who get to decide what speech its OK to ban. A curious belief given the topic of this thread. This is why civil libertarians deny the power to punish speech.

Who the fuck is calling for sanctioning violence against speech legally?

People seeking to make anti-fascist speech/association illegal?

 

[dismal]

I've already explained the dividing line in current law. Abstract calls to violence are protected speech. For incitement to apply there must be a reasonable belief the violence being called for is imminent and likely.

So you can say "somebody ought to punch Trump". You can't punch someone for wearing a MAGA hat because you think he's inciting violence.

Note these tests have been applied to protect both the rights of KKK members and Viet Nam war protestors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana

Everyone here seems to be of the opinion that if violence against speech gets sanctioned they will be the ones who get to decide what speech its OK to ban. A curious belief given the topic of this thread. This is why civil libertarians deny the power to punish speech.

Who the fuck is calling for sanctioning violence against speech legally?

Tip: if you're talking about initiating vigilante violence against speech courts have found to be a Constitutional right it's worse than calling for it to be made illegal.

 

[PyramidHead]

I've already explained the dividing line in current law. Abstract calls to violence are protected speech. For incitement to apply there must be a reasonable belief the violence being called for is imminent and likely.

So you can say "somebody ought to punch Trump". You can't punch someone for wearing a MAGA hat because you think he's inciting violence.

Note these tests have been applied to protect both the rights of KKK members and Viet Nam war protestors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana

Everyone here seems to be of the opinion that if violence against speech gets sanctioned they will be the ones who get to decide what speech its OK to ban. A curious belief given the topic of this thread. This is why civil libertarians deny the power to punish speech.

Who the fuck is calling for sanctioning violence against speech legally?

Tip: if you're talking about initiating vigilante violence against speech courts have found to be a Constitutional right it's worse than calling for it to be made illegal.

So nobody is talking about banning speech, got it thanks

 

[dismal]

Tip: if you're talking about initiating vigilante violence against speech courts have found to be a Constitutional right it's worse than calling for it to be made illegal.

So nobody is talking about banning speech, got it thanks

Well, some people are but you are advocating something much, much worse.

 

[PyramidHead]

Tip: if you're talking about initiating vigilante violence against speech courts have found to be a Constitutional right it's worse than calling for it to be made illegal.

So nobody is talking about banning speech, got it thanks

Well, some people are but you are advocating something much, much worse.

I don't remember advocating anything in this conversation except that antifa shouldn't be called terrorists and fascists should be resisted when they try to hurt people. Where's the lie?

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, some people are but you are advocating something much, much worse.

I don't remember advocating anything in this conversation except that antifa shouldn't be called terrorists and fascists should be resisted when they try to hurt people. Where's the lie?

There isn't one. I just think we can pretty confidently evaluate which between "fascism" and "not fascism" Dismal prefers.

 

[dismal]

Well, some people are but you are advocating something much, much worse.

I don't remember advocating anything in this conversation except that antifa shouldn't be called terrorists and fascists should be resisted when they try to hurt people. Where's the lie?

I think it may be possible for some people to recall other conversations.

But if you want to clarify the record and categorically state you do not endorse violence against people based on their speech you are welcome to do so............now.

You can also probably stop arguing against me if you agree with my position.

 

[dismal]

Well, some people are but you are advocating something much, much worse.

I don't remember advocating anything in this conversation except that antifa shouldn't be called terrorists and fascists should be resisted when they try to hurt people. Where's the lie?

There isn't one. I just think we can pretty confidently evaluate which between "fascism" and "not fascism" Dismal prefers.

I'm arguing for free speech not fascism. I am also against fascists committing violence to silence speech. Since this has been made clear several times now you just look sad and pathetic going there.

Free speech is not a fascist value. Violence against speech you don't like (aka your position) is much more down the fascist fairway.

 

[dismal]

Case and point:

Here's a guy getting out of his truck to punch the shit out of an elderly protestor.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article233433517.html

I don't actually need to know what side the puncher was on to declare him "wrong" and hope he does some time.

If the puncher is a Trump supporter, he'd probably make exactly the same arguments people here make to rationalize his act.

I consider acts like this part of the consequences of having asshats on the internet who think it's OK to punch people who disagree with them.

 

[Arctish]

How about addressing the point?

In the US you have to release a minor to a guardian, not simply onto the streets. That leaves no options but to detain them if there is no available guardian.

Loren is absolutely right about this.

There was a sudden spike in the number of unaccompanied minors arriving at the border during the Obama Administration. The government suddenly had the responsibility to house, feed, clothe, and care for them while their applications for admittance were processed and guardians for them found. Did it do an awesome, amazingly wonderful job? No. But here's the difference: the Obama Administration wasn't creating and adding to the problem by separating children from their parents. It wasn't cruelly punishing them and their families as a deterrent to other would-be migrants. It wasn't carelessly, thoughtlessly, or deliberately forcing them to live in squalor, on short rations, depriving them of sleep and medical care and clean clothes and basic necessities. It wasn't putting sick toddlers in the care of 12 year olds as a matter of course.

There is a huge difference between what happened then and what is happening now because of why it happened/is happening.

I've been informed that defending camps is fascist apologism. You just made the list.

You've been informed defending the abuse of children and denying them and their families the full protection of the law is fascist apologism. Your inability to understand the difference between that and housing unaccompanied minors for legal, non-abusive reasons is entirely on you.

 

[dismal]

I've been informed that defending camps is fascist apologism. You just made the list.

You've been informed defending the abuse of children and denying them and their families the full protection of the law is fascist apologism. Your inability to understand the difference between that and housing unaccompanied minors for non-abusive and legal reasons is your problem.

You're the one saying it's OK to send children to Japanese internment camps, not me.

 

[Arctish]

Like I said, your inability to understand is your problem.

 

[dismal]

Like I said, your inability to understand is your problem.

Well, it's hard to understand why you support it, but I'm told to assume it's because you're a fascist.

 

[PyramidHead]

Well, some people are but you are advocating something much, much worse.

I don't remember advocating anything in this conversation except that antifa shouldn't be called terrorists and fascists should be resisted when they try to hurt people. Where's the lie?

I think it may be possible for some people to recall other conversations.

But if you want to clarify the record and categorically state you do not endorse violence against people based on their speech you are welcome to do so............now.

I endorse physical defense against violence initiated by someone else. Some speech is violence initiated by someone else; if you can't understand or accept that, it's not my problem.

 

[dismal]

I think it may be possible for some people to recall other conversations.

But if you want to clarify the record and categorically state you do not endorse violence against people based on their speech you are welcome to do so............now.

I endorse physical defense against violence initiated by someone else. Some speech is violence initiated by someone else; if you can't understand or accept that, it's not my problem.

Yes, so long as by "violence initiated" you mean holding a sign or wearing at hat with a message you don't like we agree on what you believe. I just don't delude myself into thinking that "holding a sign with a message" isn't speech.

If you have to go to ridiculous lengths to distort what it is you believe it's probably a sign you're embarrassed by it. As I think you should be, of course, as endorsing violence against speech is pretty nasty and illiberal.

 

[PyramidHead]

Reminder. This is a thread about Ted Cruz' proposal to designate antifas, which are grassroots movements that spontaneously form in response to fascist demonstrations in public, as a terrorist organization. If you would like to continue (or start) talking about that topic, nobody is stopping you.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think it may be possible for some people to recall other conversations.

But if you want to clarify the record and categorically state you do not endorse violence against people based on their speech you are welcome to do so............now.

I endorse physical defense against violence initiated by someone else. Some speech is violence initiated by someone else; if you can't understand or accept that, it's not my problem.

Yes, so long as by "violence initiated" you mean holding a sign or wearing at hat with a message you don't like we agree on what you believe. I just don't delude myself into thinking that "holding a sign with a message" isn't speech.

dismal, if you want to know what I mean or what I believe, you could try asking a question for the first time in your long tenure in this community. The question mark is the little squiggly line with a dot underneath it

If you have to go to ridiculous lengths to distort what it is you believe it's probably a sign you're embarrassed by it. As I think you should be, of course, as endorsing violence against speech is pretty nasty and illiberal.

I'm not a liberal

 

[Jarhyn]

Reminder. This is a thread about Ted Cruz' proposal to designate antifas, which are grassroots movements that spontaneously form in response to fascist demonstrations in public, as a terrorist organization. If you would like to continue (or start) talking about that topic, nobody is stopping you.

"Fighting Fascism is Fascism!" -some fascist, probably.

 

[dismal]

Yes, so long as by "violence initiated" you mean holding a sign or wearing at hat with a message you don't like we agree on what you believe. I just don't delude myself into thinking that "holding a sign with a message" isn't speech.

dismal, if you want to know what I mean or what I believe, you could try asking a question for the first time in your long tenure in this community. The question mark is the little squiggly line with a dot underneath it

If you have to go to ridiculous lengths to distort what it is you believe it's probably a sign you're embarrassed by it. As I think you should be, of course, as endorsing violence against speech is pretty nasty and illiberal.

I'm not a liberal

No, agreed, you've got a nasty totalitarian streak.

 

[Jarhyn]

dismal, if you want to know what I mean or what I believe, you could try asking a question for the first time in your long tenure in this community. The question mark is the little squiggly line with a dot underneath it


I'm not a liberal

No, agreed, you've got a nasty totalitarian streak.

Wow, it didn't even take 5 minutes.

Do you, or do you not, support the criminalization of demonstrations against fascism?

Do you or do you not support the criminalization of demonstrations FOR fascism?

Take a stand on the OP.