Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What people do is what matters, not who they are.
Like, say, killing people with your car, right?
Yes. You'll notice that almost no one is talking about the guy killing people with his car. It's all about condemning the ideology of the protesters. Any failure to do that
and only that is met with a label of racism, or at least defending racists. Anyone who points out that the counter protest was unlawful is accused of defending, not just the right of the protesters to protest, but the ideology of those protesters.
Which is exactly what I'm talking about. They're picking a "side" based on who is in which group, and projecting that onto everyone else. If I'm not 100% on board with the counter protesters actions, then I must be 100% in support of the protesters ideology.
There's a middle ground where I can completely detest and oppose the ideology of the protesters while also opposing the action of those who were countering their protest. And it's alarming to me that doing this is met with accusations of being a racist, siding with racists, etc. That's now how our 1st amendment works.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The issue is whether that reaction is legal or not.
It is. The 1st amendment is about the
government suppressing your speech, not your fellow citizens.
Yes. But that's not the issue here. An unlawful assembly is unlawful regardless of whether you agree with the message of those assembling. You don't get to just show up and block streets because you want to. At the end of the day, the white nationalists had a permit for their protest, and those countering them did not. The thousands of people showing up and blocking streets, blocking access to the assembly area, etc, were in violation of the law.
That's what I meant by "the issue is whether that reaction is legal or not". The counter protest was illegal. Period. it doesn't magically become legal because we agree with their position. In the same way that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't become illegal if we like the guy who yelled, and we dislike the people in the theater.
Quote:
Amazing how many racist dink-bags think that the 1st amendment lets then say anything they want any time with no repercussions.
Again though, that's not the issue here. In this particular case, the ACLU defended their 1st amendment right to hold that protest. It wasn't "anything they want, any time they want". It was a specific protest, at a specific time, and a specific place, that they got lawful approval to hold. Again, you're allow your own disagreement with them and their position to bias how you think the law should apply. In this case, as it pertains to the actual protest itself, they were in the right, and those countering them were in the wrong.
Again! (cause I apparently have to say this over and over), that does not mean that their opinions are right and the opinions of those who oppose them are wrong. It merely means that the protest itself was legal, while the counter protest was illegal.
It also doesn't mean that the violence they engaged in was legal either. And yes, that includes the guy who ran into the crowd with his car. But at the same time, the actions of the counter protesters were *also* illegal. That's not opinion, that's fact. The problem I see is that merely pointing that out is somehow equated with defending the opinions and positions of the protesters. It's not though. An action is illegal regardless of whether other actions going on nearby are also illegal, and certainly regardless of whether there are people nearby who have opinions you disagree with.
Quote:
PROTIP: It doesn't.
It's also irrelevant to the point I'm making.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I've been seeing a whole lot of excuses of the counter protesters actions because of the identity of the protesters they were countering.
Given that the US has fought at least two wars because of N*A*Z*I*S and racists, I'm inclined not to give two fu
cks about their feelings.
Why is it always about "feelings". I'm talking about legal versus illegal actions. Period. It's not about how I feel about a group, or the group who oppose them. It's about whether the actions taken represent violations of the law. Period. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok to break the law, as long as you're doing it to hurt people we all don't like.
We're all protected by the law. Even people with disgusting ideological positions.
Quote:
Your douche friends have the right to spout their evil, hateful message and everyone else has the right to shout them down.
A. They're not "my friends" (nice job proving my point about the associations being made though).
B. By all means, shout them down. But you must do so via your own lawfully exercised first amendment rights. Blocking streets is not merely "shouting them down". It's breaking the law. You don't get to violate the law because you disagree with someone else.
Quote:
Perhaps the douches you care so much about can get a major news service to spread their message.....oh wait, they already have that, eh?
And once again, you display the exact associative thinking I'm talking about. No one's allowed to question or condemn the actions of the counter protesters without being labeled as racists, or defenders of racists, etc.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. What you're doing is in complete opposition to the principle of free speech and the basic concept of a free society. You're free to disagree with someone's opinion. You're free to express that disagreement. You don't get to use violence and other unlawful acts to prevent them from expressing those opinions in the first place though. I know that its easy to think that some opinions are so bad, so offensive, and even so "evil" that we should, but the reality is that we shouldn't. We should let them speak. Let them express themselves. Let them show who they are, and what they believe. And then respond in kind, showing why they're wrong, why they are hateful, etc.
Because when you do that, you leave no doubt that you are countering them, because everyone can hear what they say and what you say. When you block their speech, all you do is create questions. Some will wonder what the other side really has to say. Is it really that bad? There's always some people who will gravitate to what they see as the "downtrodden" side. The last thing you want to do is make speech martyrs out of these people. You don't want people to see them as sympathetic, or start to wonder if maybe it's "the man" keeping them down, and maybe they should look into this whole neo-**** thing.
That's just plain stupid. Let them speak. Let their own words be their downfall. Trust that your position is the stronger one and will win out when both side speak in the light of day. If you try to suppress their speech, you'll only allow it to grow in strength in the darkness.
Maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but I think that most people can see that their ideas are bad and will reject them. Have a little faith in your fellow man.