Permission to Protest?

[buckchuckler]

There is a segment of American society who actively block the right of others to speak.

The fact that someone demands the arrest of someone because he doesn't like what they have to say is chilling.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrased Voltaire when she wrote, "I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say." It's a damn shame that so many people have lost sight of that fundamental principle of freedom and a just society.

I recall the Supreme Court ruling which guaranteed the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie which had the highest concentration of Nazi Death Camp survivors. The high court found that while it found the message reprehensible the Constitution ensured the right to say it.

Denying the right of free speech is anathema to the proper function of a democratic society. Only an idiot would suggest someone be arrested because of what they are saying.

[Jon]

I recall reading that the leader of the Chicago-based National Socialist Party of America was raised Catholic but  had a German Jewish emigre father who fled Nazi Germany.

You cannot make that up.

[Galway Eagle]

???  I'm saying that Ike was an original Anti Fascist.

Hahaha I was driving and briefly looked at it and swear to god thought I saw an SS on the uniform.

Going to go hide in shame now lol

[rocket surgeon]

So say you don't like it. What you actually said was "I don't get how this is allowed." Which is advocating for that form of free speech to be shut down.

I honestly am confused. The first thing that popped into my head was Klansmen in robes but that doesn't seem to be what you're referring to. Please explain.

i am truly concerned about people being able to protest while concealing their identities.  anitfa.  they also come out in helmits, armour, kevlar, not to mention weapons, etc  that is not protesting imho.  ok, once again, i am not saying they cannot do what they are doing.  i personally may be against it, but i am not advocating for our government to stop it. 

why must they conceal their identities?  show us who you are and protest away

[jesmu84]

i am truly concerned about people being able to protest while concealing their identities.  anitfa.  they also come out in helmits, armour, kevlar, not to mention weapons, etc  that is not protesting imho.  ok, once again, i am not saying they cannot do what they are doing.  i personally may be against it, but i am not advocating for our government to stop it. 

why must they conceal their identities?  show us who you are and protest away

Are you concerned about all people and groups that protest while concealing identities?

Do you think the Hong Kong protestors have a valid argument for concealment?

[rocket surgeon]

Are you concerned about all people and groups that protest while concealing identities?

Do you think the Hong Kong protestors have a valid argument for concealment?

hong kong is not U.S.A. even though we do have their interests at heart, or most of us do anyway.  i'm thinking however, concealed or not, xinping can "suppress" them either way.  a mask or a helmet for that matter ain't gonna help

[jesmu84]

hong kong is not U.S.A. even though we do have their interests at heart, or most of us do anyway.  i'm thinking however, concealed or not, xinping can "suppress" them either way.  a mask or a helmet for that matter ain't gonna help

And what about the first question?

[D'Lo Brown]

And you would be wrong.

Can you clarify, or are you just yet again professing ignorant confidence?

Out of the 6 shot dead by police, 3 were confirmed to be walking through/by and not involved in the protest in any way. James Earl Green, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Lee Scheuer were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Maybe you mean that technically they must have been onlookers as they walked past to their work/school, as they must have had their eyes open as they were shot...

[Cheeks]

Not quite sure what the preacher was doing and where....  but if he is publicly - on campus - calling girls whores, he should be arrested.

What if they were girls calling people NAZIs or fascists?  Arrest them?

[Cheeks]

I didn't realize Ike wore ski masks, protested, justified violence and did everything he could to thwart law enforcement.  Do you have something that justifies the comparison?

[brewcity77]

I didn't realize Ike wore ski masks, protested, justified violence and did everything he could to thwart law enforcement.  Do you have something that justifies the comparison?

Dumb post, or dumbest post?

[Cheeks]

Dumb post, or dumbest post?

Feel free to tell us why

[dgies9156]

Boy, times have changed since the 1970s!

[mu03eng]

I miss the time when we knew who the nazis were.....simpler times man, simpler times

[Benny B]

Can you clarify, or are you just yet again professing ignorant confidence?

Out of the 6 shot dead by police, 3 were confirmed to be walking through/by and not involved in the protest in any way. James Earl Green, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Lee Scheuer were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Maybe you mean that technically they must have been onlookers as they walked past to their work/school, as they must have had their eyes open as they were shot...

Half is not a majority, genius.

[Cheeks]

Half is not a majority, genius.

I chuckled, so much my jaw hurt a bit.

[rocket surgeon]

And what about the first question?

other than the klan, i am not aware of another group here in the U.S.A. who protest incognito.  unless you count bank robbers who are protesting the fact that the bank has too much money and they are entitled to some of it.  i really haven't seen much, if any Klan activity since robert byrd(well known and "admired" west virginia democrat and past kleagle and recruiter for the kkk) was around and believe me, if they were out there, they would get a hell of lot more coverage than antifa

so the short answer would be that i don't really like to see anyone protest looking like they are going to play football with a batman mask and brass knuckles and clubs throwing "milkshakes", using bear spray among other "stuff".  that does not have the appearance of looking for an exchange of ideas other than their own

 

[brewcity77]

Feel free to tell us why

Because Antifa literally means anti-fascist. So unless you are asserting Ike was pro-fascism, pro-Nazism, which he clearly was not based on his military and political record, he was Antifa. By definition.

Similarly, anyone that is against fascism is Antifa. In the world of Nazis, you're either pro or anti. It's pretty simple.

EDIT: And the reason it's in the "dumbest post" category is the implied question of "what did Dwight Eisenhower ever do that was anti-fascist?" Which should elicit a massive, earth-shattering "Duh" from any sentient being with two brain cells to rub together.

[jesmu84]

other than the klan, i am not aware of another group here in the U.S.A. who protest incognito.  unless you count bank robbers who are protesting the fact that the bank has too much money and they are entitled to some of it.  i really haven't seen much, if any Klan activity since robert byrd(well known and "admired" west virginia democrat and past kleagle and recruiter for the kkk) was around and believe me, if they were out there, they would get a hell of lot more coverage than antifa

so the short answer would be that i don't really like to see anyone protest looking like they are going to play football with a batman mask and brass knuckles and clubs throwing "milkshakes", using bear spray among other "stuff".  that does not have the appearance of looking for an exchange of ideas other than their own

Maybe look a bit closer at some of these rallies?

[ATL MU Warrior]

other than the klan, i am not aware of another group here in the U.S.A. who protest incognito.  unless you count bank robbers who are protesting the fact that the bank has too much money and they are entitled to some of it.  i really haven't seen much, if any Klan activity since robert byrd(well known and "admired" west virginia democrat and past kleagle and recruiter for the kkk) was around and believe me, if they were out there, they would get a hell of lot more coverage than antifa

so the short answer would be that i don't really like to see anyone protest looking like they are going to play football with a batman mask and brass knuckles and clubs throwing "milkshakes", using bear spray among other "stuff".  that does not have the appearance of looking for an exchange of ideas other than their own

If you put even ten seconds of effort into educating yourself you would learn that many Unite the Right types also wear body armor, helmets, and other protective gear and many also show up to rallies incognito.

[tower912]

Antifa's roots are in fighting Nazis, Fascists, white nationalist skinheads.  Confronting them directly and being willing to engage physically.  I will not defend every action of every member of Antifa.   I will, however, applaud the concept of standing against Nazis, Fascists, and white nationalists.

[The Sultan]

I didn't realize Ike wore ski masks, protested, justified violence and did everything he could to thwart law enforcement.  Do you have something that justifies the comparison?

Not to speak for TinyTim, but this meme has been floating around on Facebook for awhile.  I think the point is that "Antifa" isn't a set organization, and that while parts of the movement tend toward violence, much of it isn't.  So being "anti facist" takes many forms.

[buckchuckler]

Hahaha I was driving and briefly looked at it and swear to god thought I saw an SS on the uniform.

Going to go hide in shame now lol

Cmon man.  Don't scoop and drive.  Not only do you not scoop well, you don't drive safely either.  Don't jeopardize lives to make a freaking internet post.

[Cheeks]

Because Antifa literally means anti-fascist. So unless you are asserting Ike was pro-fascism, pro-Nazism, which he clearly was not based on his military and political record, he was Antifa. By definition.

Similarly, anyone that is against fascism is Antifa. In the world of Nazis, you're either pro or anti. It's pretty simple.

EDIT: And the reason it's in the "dumbest post" category is the implied question of "what did Dwight Eisenhower ever do that was anti-fascist?" Which should elicit a massive, earth-shattering "Duh" from any sentient being with two brain cells to rub together.

I'm aware of what it stands for, that doesn't mean they don't act in exactly the way they claim not to be.  They can claim to be anti fascist all they wish, their actions of suppressing free speech, bashing people's (including journalist) skulls in, etc says otherwise. 

[jficke13]

"Fire" in a crowded theater?
[...]

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

When you claim you "can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" you're relying on a 90+ year old case (Schenk v. US) that has been repeatedly and universally backed away from in every free speech case that has followed it. And, the "fire" being shouted in the case was about someone protesting the draft. But don't trust me, a dude on a message board, let's here it from the far more eloquent first amendment lawyer, Ken White:

"Holmes' famous quote is the go-to argument by appeal to authority for anyone who wants to suggest that some particular utterance is not protected by the First Amendment. Its relentless overuse is annoying and unpersuasive to most people concerned with the actual history and progress of free speech jurisprudence. People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument.

Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."