|
|
Post by drystyx on Aug 16, 2017 16:49:55 GMT
No hate group should be permitted to hold rallies. I am sure I will be denied a permit to have a public rally by writing down "I am a big bad tiger", so a klansman shouldn't be allowed to have a rally saying he's a big bad dragon, and a Nazi shouldn't be allowed to have a rally saying he's a big bad whatever.
On the serious side, the main reason is because there can't be total isolation. There are white men who work low level minimum wage jobs everywhere, even next to the places of demonstrations. They get off work, go outside, and are close enough to the klansmen to be misidentified as one of them, putting them in more danger than the klansmen themselves, because they don't realize they are about to be attacked by reactionary people. The primary blame belongs to the ones who start the hate, and secondary blame to those who attack the wrong white men. We know this happens, because we have all seen it happen away from such rallies.
Safety of individuals comes before rights of mobs to be control freaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Aug 16, 2017 17:56:15 GMT
hmmm...though your point is well taken, the alt right group had a permit for their rally, and the counter demonstrators did not. Are you saying that the counter demonstrators should be held accountable?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2017 18:22:46 GMT
No hate group should be permitted to hold rallies. I am sure I will be denied a permit to have a public rally by writing down "I am a big bad tiger", so a klansman shouldn't be allowed to have a rally saying he's a big bad dragon, and a Nazi shouldn't be allowed to have a rally saying he's a big bad whatever. On the serious side, the main reason is because there can't be total isolation. There are white men who work low level minimum wage jobs everywhere, even next to the places of demonstrations. They get off work, go outside, and are close enough to the klansmen to be misidentified as one of them, putting them in more danger than the klansmen themselves, because they don't realize they are about to be attacked by reactionary people. The primary blame belongs to the ones who start the hate, and secondary blame to those who attack the wrong white men. We know this happens, because we have all seen it happen away from such rallies. Safety of individuals comes before rights of mobs to be control freaks. Disagree 95%. Was going to say 100, but I agree with your last statement. The issue is not that anyone can protest or demonstrate or speak up, but the issue is that often times it degrades into violence, there are two possible causes for this: 1) The demonstrating group incited violence, this is already illegal in most countries and so there is nothing else we need to do here except ensure this is correctly policed. 2) Another group came along and the rhetoric escalated into violence, again this is something that can be stopped by effective policing. No set of people should be restricted in terms of speaking up, that is the path to fascism. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 17, 2017 7:05:50 GMT
There are white men who work low level minimum wage jobs everywhere, even next to the places of demonstrations. They get off work, go outside, and are close enough to the klansmen to be misidentified as one of them, putting them in more danger than the klansmen themselves, because they don't realize they are about to be attacked by reactionary people. If any such danger exists, simple steps can be taken to insure that nearby businesses and homes are made aware of the demonstration.
You don't resort to a radical measure like taking away peoples' rights when there are other means to solve a potential problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 17, 2017 11:13:07 GMT
I have no issues with them demonstrating and I have no issues with counter-protesters.
There have been plenty of them that are violence free.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 17, 2017 11:24:01 GMT
In New York City, legal protests are pretty tightly controlled by the police in terms of "space." They set up barricades, and the protesters do their thing in the designated barricaded space, or else they'll be arrested. Counter-protesters are given their own barricaded space, and the different groups are kept physically separated from each other.
Why can't every community conduct protests this way?
If they don't have the police resources for it, require that the protest be held in the nearest town/city where the resources can at least be pooled for it.
In my opinion it would be preferable to not require police control of protests in this way, but since protesters can otherwise be lunkheads, sometimes being violent, sometimes being vandals, sometimes blocking roads and commerce, etc., I don't think it's a bad idea. We're still allowing protests, but we're helping avoid the negative side of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 13:58:58 GMT
I feel like quotes Voltaire  |
|
|
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Aug 22, 2017 4:04:13 GMT
hmmm...though your point is well taken, the alt right group had a permit for their rally, and the counter demonstrators did not. Are you saying that the counter demonstrators should be held accountable? Actually they did have a permit. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Aug 22, 2017 4:51:02 GMT
I feel like quotes Voltaire You didn't quote Voltaire. You quoted Evelyn Beatrice Hall who committed literary fraud by claiming that Voltaire was the originator of that quote which never appeared in print until Hall's book which was published over 125 years after Voltaire's death. It is quite interesting, however, to try to defend Nazi "free speech" by misquoting an anti-Semite. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 8:27:01 GMT
I feel like quotes Voltaire You didn't quote Voltaire. You quoted Evelyn Beatrice Hall who committed literary fraud by claiming that Voltaire was the originator of that quote which never appeared in print until Hall's book which was published over 125 years after Voltaire's death. It is quite interesting, however, to try to defend Nazi "free speech" by misquoting an anti-Semite. Even idiots have the right to free speech. If you want to have free speech you also have to give it to the people you disagree with. And calling me a nazi because i think everybody shoule have the right to say what they want even if you disagree with them says more about you than me. Let me guess you are one of those annoying PC\SJW people |
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Aug 22, 2017 9:23:17 GMT
You didn't quote Voltaire. You quoted Evelyn Beatrice Hall who committed literary fraud by claiming that Voltaire was the originator of that quote which never appeared in print until Hall's book which was published over 125 years after Voltaire's death. It is quite interesting, however, to try to defend Nazi "free speech" by misquoting an anti-Semite. Even idiots have the right to free speech. If you want to have free speech you also have to give it to the people you disagree with. And calling me a nazi because i think everybody shoule have the right to say what they want even if you disagree with them says more about you than me. Let me guess you are one of those annoying PC\SJW people I don't believe he was calling you a Nazi. First off, Voltaire never made the quote (in French or any other language) that you attributed to him. It's the creation of a Voltaire biographer. If I recall correctly, the biographer tried to minimize the significance of her "quote" by saying that she had inadvertently used quotation marks where none belonged. It was a minor matter, she claimed. I rather doubt that and it's due to tricksters of her sort that we have a tendency to distrust any biographical work or any current event reporting. It's rather similar to the famous Hitler "quotation" regarding his demands for law and order that oddly paralleled what George Wallace and Richard Nixon were saying in 1968. The full Hitler "quote" appeared in the 1971 movie Billy Jack and it's a total fabrication. Hitler never said any such thing. Secondly, it appears that Voltaire was rather antisemitic. Here's something from his wikipedia article: As to defending the free speech rights of idiots, I used to agree with that view but no longer do. There have been murderous assaults against abortion clinics and personnel. They result from the endless and vicious propaganda of churches and the reporting of scum media outlets like FOX. Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller was referred to as "Tiller the Killer" some 22 times by Bill O'Reilly, until recently at FOX. As for the Nazi types at Charlottsville, they deserve no right to speak freely. It gets people killed and in Germany in led to Hitler taking power. It might happen in America. Unlikely but possible. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Aug 22, 2017 10:42:00 GMT
You didn't quote Voltaire. You quoted Evelyn Beatrice Hall who committed literary fraud by claiming that Voltaire was the originator of that quote which never appeared in print until Hall's book which was published over 125 years after Voltaire's death. It is quite interesting, however, to try to defend Nazi "free speech" by misquoting an anti-Semite. Even idiots have the right to free speech. If you want to have free speech you also have to give it to the people you disagree with. And calling me a nazi because i think everybody shoule have the right to say what they want even if you disagree with them says more about you than me. Let me guess you are one of those annoying PC\SJW people How you got from what i said to what you said is something that can only be answered by the voices in your head. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 22, 2017 14:08:53 GMT
No hate group should be permitted to hold rallies. I am sure I will be denied a permit to have a public rally by writing down "I am a big bad tiger", so a klansman shouldn't be allowed to have a rally saying he's a big bad dragon, and a Nazi shouldn't be allowed to have a rally saying he's a big bad whatever. On the serious side, the main reason is because there can't be total isolation. There are white men who work low level minimum wage jobs everywhere, even next to the places of demonstrations. They get off work, go outside, and are close enough to the klansmen to be misidentified as one of them, putting them in more danger than the klansmen themselves, because they don't realize they are about to be attacked by reactionary people. The primary blame belongs to the ones who start the hate, and secondary blame to those who attack the wrong white men. We know this happens, because we have all seen it happen away from such rallies. Safety of individuals comes before rights of mobs to be control freaks. The Supreme Court disagreed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 22, 2017 16:37:58 GMT
hmmm...though your point is well taken, the alt right group had a permit for their rally, and the counter demonstrators did not. Are you saying that the counter demonstrators should be held accountable? I never understood the npotion that counter-protesters would even need a permit.
If there is a public demonstration, it is an invitation to the public.
The protesters permit should cover the expected visitors and a racists demonstration should expect quite a number of the invited would be protested such a ridiculous message.
Now if there were going to be a demonstration the following week protesting the ridiculous notion of pro-racism, then they should have a permit. Counter-protesting is simply accepting an invitation extended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 22, 2017 16:42:23 GMT
hmmm...though your point is well taken, the alt right group had a permit for their rally, and the counter demonstrators did not. Are you saying that the counter demonstrators should be held accountable? I never understood the npotion that counter-protesters would even need a permit.
If there is a public demonstration, it is an invitation to the public.
The protesters permit should cover the expected visitors and a racists demonstration should expect quite a number of the invited would be protested such a ridiculous message.
Now if there were going to be a demonstration the following week protesting the ridiculous notion of pro-racism, then they should have a permit. Counter-protesting is simply accepting an invitation extended.
The whole idea of permits is so that the communities in question can be prepared for it logistically--re traffic considerations, for example, making sure that people can get to and from the places they need to go, including work, and to help ensure safety/avoid riots, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 22, 2017 16:48:47 GMT
I never understood the npotion that counter-protesters would even need a permit.
If there is a public demonstration, it is an invitation to the public.
The protesters permit should cover the expected visitors and a racists demonstration should expect quite a number of the invited would be protested such a ridiculous message.
Now if there were going to be a demonstration the following week protesting the ridiculous notion of pro-racism, then they should have a permit. Counter-protesting is simply accepting an invitation extended.
The whole idea of permits is so that the communities in question can be prepared for it logistically--re traffic considerations, for example, making sure that people can get to and from the places they need to go, including work, and to help ensure safety/avoid riots, etc. I don't disagree with this.
However, that isn't a counter protester's problem, but rather the city's and the organizers of the demonstration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 22, 2017 16:52:31 GMT
The whole idea of permits is so that the communities in question can be prepared for it logistically--re traffic considerations, for example, making sure that people can get to and from the places they need to go, including work, and to help ensure safety/avoid riots, etc. I don't disagree with this.
However, that isn't a counter protester's problem, but rather the city's and the organizers of the demonstration.
That doesn't really make sense to me. It's the counter-protesters' problem because the cities in question have decided to require a permit for protests/rallies, whatever the context. I can understand you saying "it shouldn't be the counter-protesters' problem," and ideally I'd rather that permits not be required for a bunch of stuff, including protesting, but I can understand why they are required, and it wouldn't make much sense to require them for one group and not another, just because the other is only protesting in response to the first. The reasons that they're required in the first place are entirely practical. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 22, 2017 20:46:17 GMT
tpfkar I don't disagree with this.
However, that isn't a counter protester's problem, but rather the city's and the organizers of the demonstration.
That doesn't really make sense to me. It's the counter-protesters' problem because the cities in question have decided to require a permit for protests/rallies, whatever the context. I can understand you saying "it shouldn't be the counter-protesters' problem," and ideally I'd rather that permits not be required for a bunch of stuff, including protesting, but I can understand why they are required, and it wouldn't make much sense to require them for one group and not another, just because the other is only protesting in response to the first. The reasons that they're required in the first place are entirely practical. I guess they just need to mingle in with the original "protest" instead of marching on their own. Maybe get some advice from Antifa on how to blend into it
Back with a Bang |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Aug 22, 2017 20:50:49 GMT
No hate group should be permitted to hold rallies. I am sure I will be denied a permit to have a public rally by writing down "I am a big bad tiger", so a klansman shouldn't be allowed to have a rally saying he's a big bad dragon, and a Nazi shouldn't be allowed to have a rally saying he's a big bad whatever. On the serious side, the main reason is because there can't be total isolation. There are white men who work low level minimum wage jobs everywhere, even next to the places of demonstrations. They get off work, go outside, and are close enough to the klansmen to be misidentified as one of them, putting them in more danger than the klansmen themselves, because they don't realize they are about to be attacked by reactionary people. The primary blame belongs to the ones who start the hate, and secondary blame to those who attack the wrong white men. We know this happens, because we have all seen it happen away from such rallies. Safety of individuals comes before rights of mobs to be control freaks. The Supreme Court disagreed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_SkokieOnly a retard would consider the Supreme Court to be gods. Not saying you're a retard, just that anyone who believes their decision means squat, outside their jurisdiction of man's attempts to decide upon their feeble law, is a retard. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 22, 2017 21:05:59 GMT
I don't disagree with this.
However, that isn't a counter protester's problem, but rather the city's and the organizers of the demonstration.
That doesn't really make sense to me. It's the counter-protesters' problem because the cities in question have decided to require a permit for protests/rallies, whatever the context. I can understand you saying "it shouldn't be the counter-protesters' problem," and ideally I'd rather that permits not be required for a bunch of stuff, including protesting, but I can understand why they are required, and it wouldn't make much sense to require them for one group and not another, just because the other is only protesting in response to the first. The reasons that they're required in the first place are entirely practical. The permit is for the rally. The rally is designed to attract people. The people it attracts have never needed a permit. The city and the rally are the ones who underestimate the counter-protest.
If a city throws a parade, do the people who show up have to do anything special despite the fact that they are there as a group to enjoy the parade? Of course not, because the planning factors in people coming and handles it accordingly.
The protesters and the city, still completely protected by free speech rights, then have to decide whether or not the rally should continue given the number that showed up to counter-protest.
|
|
