Richard Spencer is a Nazi pretending to not be a Nazi, advocating for the removal of non-white ethnicity from the United States in an effort to make the United States a staggeringly white nation. His civil rights have allowed for a platform to be throw out his Nazi dogwhistles, and no legal authority has stepped in to prevent his right to speaking his anti-minority speech across the country - nor has it prevented the massive donations he has garnered from rich white dudes that agree with him funding his nation-wide tours allowing for low-cost speaking fees anywhere he goes. He relatively unknown to most people, having received national coverage two or three times ever.
Christine Fair is an idiot who has been covered in the media for her defense of extra-judicial assassinations using drones. She saw Spencer visiting a gym and confronted him, using her civil rights to chastise him for his beliefs. Since he is rather well known for using aliases in his private life to avoid facing the consequences of his free speech, someone recognizing him and calling him out is actually a useful thing to do - he also claimed to not be Richard Spencer when she first talked to him. All of this is legal, just like idiots ranting at minorities in stores caught on video posted on this site have the civil right to yell at someone.
The gym is a local franchise, and banned Spencer. As far as I can tell the gym never gave a statement, so we don’t know if the gym is owned by a Muslim (who Spencer publicly attacks), someone Hispanic (who Spencer publicly attacks), a woman (who Spencer publicly attacks), or if it’s a rich white conservative who banned him for falsifying his membership documentation. Even assuming they banned Spencer for being Spencer, it’s not a violation of his civil rights in spirit or otherwise. When someone uses a platform to espouse a political ideology - especially one that targets specific groups - those groups have the civil right to say they don’t want the baggage he carries with them in their club. He’s not being targeted for his religion, race, or orientation or anything else that isn’t mutable - he’s has made himself a target because he runs a national campaign to attack the civil rights of others.
What’s worse is that Spencer initially came out on social media saying that the gym was on his side, and the author is using his (both biased and generally inaccurate) reporting of the events to prove that Spencer was a model gym member. Spencer’s membership was terminated as a direct result from the confrontation with no explanation given, the letter was posted online:
While I don’t think I would have done it, she had every right to confront the guy. And I think if anything, she should have been banned as well, if not instead of him. She’s the one who caused the disruption, not him. I’m surprised there hasn’t already been a lawsuit against the gym for discrimination against him.
And as for ‘the free speech brigade,’ I guess I’m one of them, because I stand with the ACLU.
A person’s religion is certainly mutable. Your logic would allow me to not allow muslims into my business (or country) because factions of that group target specific groups with their terror. Luckily, our laws disagree and say that it can’t be allowed.
Spencer wasn’t preaching from the treadmill. People worked out there for months before anyone made a fuss. As I said, she had a right to confront the guy, but I have to wonder why she’s not paying a fair price for her actions.
You still don’t know why they banned him, but you are speaking as if you do. The only source of Spencer being a model gym member is from Spencer, and there is no statement from the gym on the matter.
Religion is more often than not directly tied to ethnicity, if you failed to notice how Islamophobia works. Religion and ethnicity are extremely intertwined, political beliefs are not.
Spencer still does preach , and still gets to face the consequences of such preaching. Or are taking the stand that every person fired for being making wildly racist comments on social media or even during their job be allowed to sue for compensation from their employers?
And the ACLU’s entire case with Berkeley is predicated on the university receiving federal funding making them a government institution that is not legally allowed to cancel or postpone a speaker until after violence breaks out as a result of the speech. It has zero bearing on this situation in any form, you are just putting hate speech on a pedestal - unlike the ACLU:
[quote=ACLU link]That means being an advocate: speaking out and convincing others. Confronting, hearing, and countering offensive speech we disagree with is a skill. And one that should be considered a core requirement at any school worth its salt.[/quote]Spencer doesn’t just get to defend his ideals when he is on a planned debate stage, he has to be willing to stand for his free speech 24/7. Your civil rights don’t just give you the benefits, they give you the consequences. Where was the violence? What did she do other than be a loud idiot - the kind of which you are meant to be defending?
Your stance is an absurdity that makes me mockingly refer to a group as the “free speech brigade” that manages only to show up to defend the right for Richard Spencer to abuse social norms imposed by wealthy white folks to spread targeted harassment to the minority population. Same for Milo who is well known for his specific targeting of individuals, and encouraging his followers to make repeated threats against them - things not protected under the legal right to free speech.
It was inevitable because of early voting, but he even won decisively. I’m already seeing the DNC being blamed for a lack of funding already too.
What is disgusting is the response from congress of “he should apologize” as if having a representative body slam a reporter can just be washed away. Had this happened a month ago it would have meant more, but now he is going to be encouraged to behave like the thug his is. If we didn’t have Trump the federal legal authority would be combing over the case too, but we know that won’t happen.
While sitting in the car, Mr. Erdogan conferred with Muhsin Kose, his head of security, who leaned into the car’s rear door. After speaking with Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Kose talked into his earpiece, and three security personnel who were guarding the president’s car hurried toward the protest.
The brawl began moments later, and one of these men, a heavy-set bald man, appeared on video punching and kicking people.
[quote]“No law-abiding Texan should be priced out of the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Abbott said in signing the measure.[/quote]The hypocrisy of this statement compared to defending the democratic process of our nation.
Especially when the unspoken truth is that those Second Amendment rights are being used to literally scare citizens from voting. How is that not a more fundamental right?
Also, the same people who think white militia members have the right to walk around polling places armed to the teeth are pissing their pants over the thought of armed Black Panthers doing the same thing.
