Response to people advocating for genocide and the creation of a white ethno state:
“Well, you know, they have a right to say what they want, and we should just make fun of them.”
Response to people advocating punching the former:
“How dare you! You can’t advocate violence because you don’t like what someone said!”
Oh, I’m dead sober about this issue and, not co-incidentally, also a member of the ACLU.
No. If the Nazi brought an assault charge against the puncher and the police refused to follow up on it there would be a whole lot of other and more effective avenues for the Nazi to seek redress before (and if ever) it becomes a First Amendment issue (this also answers @d4nj450n’s question above).
I downloaded that one for future threads.
There are quite some jumpy Joeys on the thread now. Mods will likely clean this mess, since some of us including me didn’t heed the most important do not engage recommendation.
Anyways, opposing those symbols and their proponents before they can order you to confirm is a important. Online and offline.
ETA: @jwl and @orenwolf are doing overtime, faster than I can write “this is going to be cleaned up”.
Fresh indeed.
Fuck Nazi’s.
Ok, as a practical issue I’m sure you’re correct. But the effective defense of the nazi wasn’t really my point. Only that the government selectively enforcing the law can undermine the 1st amendment (or the rest of the constitution for that matter). It’s those cases that render the 1st amendment very complex.
Velcome to Boing Boing, comrade.
Nazis by their nature aren’t espousing valid discourse. Their whole ethos is killing other people on a racial basis.
That’s not actually protected speech.
They will claim all day and night they’re exercising free speech, but inciting fights and racial violence isn’t actually covered by the first ammendment.
For good reason. I say he got off easy. He was threatening people. He could have been charged with himself.
They’ve done this. Anarchists who were naturalized American citizens were deported after the first world war. Eugene Debs ran one of his election campaigns from a jail cell because of his opposition to that war.
I’ll treat your glib dismissal as sincere. It’s true that I’ve just created this account. But I’ve been on boingboing for years. I just never created a new account when they switched to the bbs. I am from the good ol’ u.s. of a.
First they came for the Nazis…and there was no other problems because they were Nazis and Nazis are the ones who come for all the other people.
Pro tip:
Don’t instigate fights with people who are head and shoulders taller than you 
If you want to talk about theoretical or historical situations that’s fine, but this is not a Constitutional law seminar (nor is it really a 7th grade civics lesson, although I’m always forced to give one in threads like this). This is a current affairs thread where the “practicalities” matter very much.
If you are hellbent on focusing on the First Amendment aspects of this case I’d suggest you start by reading this:
Why does this keep coming up lately, the notion that a handful of isolated incidents must trigger a very specific clarification of our values or laws? It’s a slippery slope. Not everything has to be precedent-setting event. As with most things of this nature, it will be decided in a court of law and on a case-by-case basis. Random internet people saying “this guy deserved to get punched” does not equate to “we must clarify who it is socially acceptable to punch because every rule of human interaction must be clearly defined down to the finest detail.” Social norms and even laws are never that black-and-white. I remember a guy in Texas a few years back basically executing a farmhand who he caught sexually assaulting his young daughter. He never even faced trial for manslaughter, even though that’s exactly what it was if the law were interpreted based on hard-and-fast rules and ignoring all extenuating circumstances. Someone lost their life and the person who did it and admitted to it never even got a summons. Does it bother you similarity that we got no new rule out of that incident?
It’s just a demonstration of Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance.
I approve of this.
I don’t feel so guilty now for farting just before exiting an elevator full of Trump campaigners. I don’t think anyone ended up unconscious, but I can hope.
Great, then stick around and follow the community guidelines. But when your first post is stirring the pot, you should expect a measure of suspicion.
I love the idea that people try to float where punching Nazis is unproductive and there should be a non-violent approach.
It seems to me we went so long without punching Nazis that the Nazis became emboldened enough to go out in public. This is a similar problem as the recent coyote attacks. When we stopped shooting coyote on site, they lost their fear and became a problem. The solution to both problems are the same.
I don’t normally approve of punching people in the street but as the old saying goes, “a cleaned clock is right twice a day.”
Gee. I guess it was those complexities that forced Trump to give the ‘big okay’ sign to Nazis.
there are too many replies on the thread to pick just one for this gif.
