I’m curious, have any links?
A quick search didn’t show up anything, was from a video interview I saw at the time (not sure if it was online or from the regular tv news).
It’s complete fucking horseshit. The gun toting wingnuts protecting the nazis (and that’s what it is, you were protecting fucking nazis) I can guarantee you to a man are the same ones bragging about running over BLM protestors blocking highways. Yes, I’m sure somebody somewhere can dig up a video of someone claiming that. It means nothing. “Oh, well we said we’d protect BLM marchers but for some inexplicable reason they didn’t want a bunch of white people they didn’t know hanging around them with guns”. Give me a break. Who actually believes this garbage?
I don’t think there’s a difference between people who defend nazis and nazis. If you don’t want to be called a nazi, don’t defend nazis.
I’m 100% on board with this. Half the people in the KKK are probably there for social contact and don’t even care about the racist stuff. A lot of terrorists are just disaffected youth who wanted something, anything, to believe in.
In the end they still did what they did, and defending nazis is still defending nazis.
I mean, the guy could have been lying, but I think he was being genuine. These militia guys aren’t actual white-supremacists (I know some people are trying to loosen the definition of this, but I’m talking about actual nazis), they are not organisationally or ideologically associated with the alt-right, and they predate them. I’ve no doubt there are individual racists among their number (and probably even some who are actual white supremacists too), but they seem a pretty diverse set of radical individualist weirdos.
So the ACLU are nazis?
Jordan Peterson seems to think certain members of liberal arts colleges are nearly as bad as actual Stalinists (who, for the record are worse than Nazis by any sensible metric), the notion that anyone who thinks Nazis having a right to free-speech makes them nearly as bad as actual Nazis is equally as stupid as Peterson. There might be good practical arguments to be made for why certain speech needs to be limited (I’m not an absolutist myself, though closer to the ACLU position than the other side), but that doesn’t give people a legitimate reason to slander people in the opposite camp because they disagree with that view, and doing so is counter-productive in the extreme.
Even the nazis think Free Speech™ is just a cover.
I was pleased to see this paragraph in the nytimes
And yet, the First Amendment is not as strong a shield as many assume it to be. Throughout its history, politicians and judges have sought to restrict its scope for political reasons. When, in 1917, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the famous line “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic,” he did so to insist that to distribute antiwar leaflets to conscripts was just like “falsely shouting fire in a theater.”
A lot of people seem to get confused about this metaphor.
I think whoever was responsible for the text that gets turned into the one-box didn’t read the article
The UK’s libel laws are anything but weak which is the point of the article.
I think they just got things backwards in their head. I think by “weak” they meant “shitty”. I mean, that’s consistent with the first part about the first amendment being too restrictive.
Yeah, I hear people bring up that the “fire in a theater” thing is a bad example because it comes from a very bad case. But the whole reason they used it as an analogy in that case it because it’s a very good example of when speech can be restricted. Obviously if you intentionally cause panic and people get trampled to death you can’t rely on “free speech” to shield you. We may object to the analogy to handing out the pamphlets, but obviously as an example of something free speech doesn’t protect, it works. We keep repeating it because it resonates.
If the case was bad, that doesn’t taint the example. (I’m not even convinced the ruling in the case was
wrong incorrect [edit: I shouldn’t say I don’t think it’s “wrong” because I think it’s terrible, but that doesn’t make it legally incorrect])
Whole bunch of stupid here, so let’s get started!
The militia members I know, from the gun shows and other various mainly conservative events of my youth, had to regularly be told not to sell or display nazi memorabilia. The rightwing ideologically is far closer to nazis than they like to admit, all the way from the boardrooms to the trailer parks. Pedantic, mealy mouthed “not real nazis” whining aside, individualists to a man subscribe to a reactionary might-makes-right ideology. “I do not need a society” is step one for “and those who oppose me must be ‘dealt with’.”
No, aside from Redneck Revolt, a relatively new group, and other antifa orgs, militias in the US have been exclusively rightwing. It’s pretty well documented.
If you want to defend nazis, be prepared to be considered a nazi. Pretty simple.
This next bit I love, and what tips your hand as just another reactionary “just asking questions” and “playing devil’s advocate”. The good old, “Stalin was as bad as the nazis!” routine. Thank goodness for certain people he existed so they can always dredge up his corpse as a counterpoint to anything bad the right does. You need to toss in some stuff about rootless cosmopolitans too, really get that McCarthy era stupidity going for full effect. Of course, we’re not talking about Stalinists, those imaginary bogeymen just waiting for the US to become weak so they can take over with the reanimated corpse of a decades dead dictator, we’re talking about nazis that are literally marching in the streets of our country right now.
But then you go and just flat out state, with no justification, that people who claim nazis don’t deserve free speech are stupid. So it’s not like you are that great at discussing the issues at hand anyways. I’ll bite though.
Emphasis mine, to showcase the stupidity. Slander. Arguing that nazis (you know, that group that wants to kill everyone who isn’t white?) shouldn’t have free speech is slander. This is exactly my point when I say that free speech absolutists (and you are one, you’re arguing in defense of nazis which is directly a defense of calling for genocide) cannot or will not place speech in context. They refuse to treat speech as anything more than words. Whereas society as a whole has decided that no, calling for someone’s death is not acceptable, as it is understood under the law as threatening language. Strict legality aside, advocating for genocide is not accepted by society as reasonable speech.
Insisting that hate speech be removed from the context that it exists in fails at the most basic understanding of the purpose behind it. Hate speech is violence because it leads to nothing but violence. There is no reasonable debate for or against the existence of a group of human beings. Claiming that there is room for debate on this issue is nothing less than advocating for it. And defending the speech of those who do is nothing less than the acceptance of their ideology as a reasonable stance.
william lloyd garrison was shocked that lovejoy used a pistol to defend himself from the mob. in one speech about the incident he described lovejoy as an american martyr if not a christian one, holding him up as representing the standard of the declaration of independence if not of the new testament scriptures. garrison was notable for his early adoption of practices related to civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance.