American Nazis protested a Holocaust remembrance event. ...

[3leftsdoo]

If someone were advocating the killing of the President of the United States of America (but wasn't actually in the process of attempting to do that themselves), would they have an inalienable 1st Amendment right to do so? (NOTE - The identity of the specific President the killing of whom was being advocated is NOT specified.)

At some point "liberty" becomes "licence".

Pretty much; it could depend, however. Example?

(Note - then it's a silly, hopelessly undefined question; you have to provide an ACTUAL instance, and that would inevitably include an actual president.)

Liberty becomes wha'? Naw.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Well if you are advocating killing a specific person than that falls under insisting violence. It's not covered under the first amendment.

Inciting, and not necessarily. In fact, most likely not in the case of a president or other high political figure.

Correct, but probably not applicable.

 

[CLAX1911]

Inciting, and not necessarily. In fact, most likely not in the case of a president or other high political figure.

Correct, but probably not applicable.

I only say that because if you have a direct call to kill someone that is considered inciting.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Opposite statements cannot both be true, so clearly valid doesn't mean true.

If I make an untrue statement is it a "valid" statement?

If I hold to the belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe and that the Universe revolves around it, does that mean that I should be entitled to teach that as a theory that is EQUALLY valid as the one that claims that the whole universe revolves around some point that is NOT the Earth and that the solar system revolves around the so-called "Sun"?

It seems to me that the underlined is exactly what was done in this case, so what's the problem?

IF that was what was done, THEN I have absolutely no problem with it.

However IF what was done was to lecture along the lines of "Many people falsely claim that the Germans killed 6,000,000 Jews during WWII. That is not true and is a lie spread by the International Jewish Conspiracy. Here is the evidence that proves what the truth actually is.", THEN I have a problem with it.

So far (and I could have missed it) I haven't seen any actual link to what was actually done. Have you?

Holocaust denial is the same as teaching it's okay to kill any religious or ethnic group that you don't like? No, those aren't the same.

Why not? We are not dealing with whether or not the parents/teacher is allowed to believe something, we are discussing whether the parent/teacher should be allowed to propagate their belief? Isn't it the same 1st Amendment right in all four cases?

There is a legal difference between the highlighted portions below

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.
​

and

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
​

Do you know what that legal difference is?

 

[3leftsdoo]

I only say that because if you have a direct call to kill someone that is considered inciting.

Not necessarily; other factors must be in play.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well if you are advocating killing a specific person than that falls under insisting violence. It's not covered under the first amendment.

You did notice that no specific person was mentioned, nor was there any mention of whether the person had actually assumed office.

However, how about if someone were advocating the killing of EVERYONE who was ever elected to public office in the United States of America (but wasn't actually in the process of attempting to do that themselves), would they have an inalienable 1st Amendment right to do so?

(NOTE - The violence is no longer advocated with respect to any individual but rather to all members of the class "__[fill in the blank]__".)

At what point does "liberty" become "licence"?

 

[Erod]

Were Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib the keynote speakers?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What's "allowable?" Ideas? Good ones, bad ones, controversial ones? Ideas are bad?

Teach? Or touch upon?

Teach?

Not so much.

Why not, doesn't a teacher (at whatever level) have the inalienable 1st Amendment right to teach whatever they believe? Shouldn't a teacher in (for example) Idaho be allowed to teach that everyone in (for example) Utah is a morally degenerate person and that they should all be wiped out if that is what the (ass per example) Idaho teacher believes?

PS - To the people of Idaho and Utah, I had to pick a location that I had a reasonable belief might be recognizable, Idaho and Utah "won" but don't take it personally because it could just as easily have been "Arkansas" and "California".

 

[3leftsdoo]

You did notice that no specific person was mentioned, nor was there any mention of whether the person had actually assumed office.

However, how about if someone were advocating the killing of EVERYONE who was ever elected to public office in the United States of America (but wasn't actually in the process of attempting to do that themselves), would they have an inalienable 1st Amendment right to do so?

(NOTE - The violence is no longer advocated with respect to any individual but rather to all members of the class "__[fill in the blank]__".)

At what point does "liberty" become "licence"?

The phrase "Hang 'em all!" comes to mind.

The whole liberty/license thing...

It's just not a thing.

 

[Deuce]

Were Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib the keynote speakers?

How many Trump voters have to show up with ****in swastikas before you admit maybe the nazi problem is on your side of the aisle.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Why not, doesn't a teacher (at whatever level) have the inalienable 1st Amendment right to teach whatever they believe? Shouldn't a teacher in (for example) Idaho be allowed to teach that everyone in (for example) Utah is a morally degenerate person and that they should all be wiped out if that is what the (ass per example) Idaho teacher believes?

PS - To the people of Idaho and Utah, I had to pick a location that I had a reasonable belief might be recognizable, Idaho and Utah "won" but don't take it personally because it could just as easily have been "Arkansas" and "California".

Probably not. Probably not. (But maybe at Miss Emily's Private Intolerance Academy.)

Well, California DOES suck...

 

[3leftsdoo]

How many Trump voters have to show up with ****in swastikas before you admit maybe the nazi problem is on your side of the aisle.

There is no "Nazi problem" - this isn't 1940.

Neo-Nazis are a ridiculously tiny group symptomatic of various societal ills.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well, babysitting is a big part of it too...

Ha! But seriously, yeah, ideas are okay; stuff can be touched upon.

So, would you be OK with a teacher telling their class

"Some people have the stupid idea that there was actually a person known as Jesus and that that person was actually 'The Son of God'. However all evidence that is produced to support either of those two points has been fabricated (originally by the so-called "Roman Catholic" so-called "Church") in order to enable the upper echelons of that so-called "Roman Catholic" so-called "Church" to conduct a secret conspiracy to control the world. We will not turn to **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H** as revealed in the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Class monitors will please pass out the 'E-Meters' now."

​

would you?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oy.

Depends on the denier.

And...

1) None.

2) None.

3) None.

Tragic, but not actionable.

Thank you for confirming that you are quite OK with living in a society that permits (nay, constitutionally protects and defends) the raising of a generation of racist religious bigoted sexists.

PS - You do know that equating someone who is in the business of making as much money as they can out of releasing stolen documents regardless of source, content, or adverse impact and regardless of their own personal opinion AND who hides away to avoid the consequences of their own actions (Mr. Assange) with someone who makes their living out of expressing their own personal opinion (Mr. Antunes) doesn't quite work.

 

[3leftsdoo]

So, would you be OK with a teacher telling their class

"Some people have the stupid idea that there was actually a person known as Jesus and that that person was actually 'The Son of God'. However all evidence that is produced to support either of those two points has been fabricated (originally by the so-called "Roman Catholic" so-called "Church") in order to enable the upper echelons of that so-called "Roman Catholic" so-called "Church" to conduct a secret conspiracy to control the world. We will not turn to **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H** as revealed in the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Class monitors will please pass out the 'E-Meters' now."

​

would you?

At the L. Ron Hubbard [Private] Elementary School Of Eternal Thetan Empowerment?

No prob.

In other contexts, sounds problematic.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There is no "Nazi problem" - this isn't 1940.

Neo-Nazis are a ridiculously tiny group symptomatic of various societal ills.

In 1920, the "Nazi" party had a total of 2,000 paid members.

In December 1924, it managed to gain 3.0% of the popular vote.

In 1932, it increased its popular vote to 37.3%.

In 1933, it increased its popular vote to 43.9%.

In parallel to what you said (slightly amended) "(AT ONE TIME Nazis were a ridiculously tiny group symptomatic of various societal ills.".

As you say "Neo-Nazis are a ridiculously tiny group symptomatic of various societal ills." - to which must be added your oft expressed position "... and a group whose constitutional rights to poison and pollute the minds of the American people we **M*U*S*T** protect at all costs.".

 

[3leftsdoo]

Thank you for confirming that you are quite OK with living in a society that permits (nay, constitutionally protects and defends) the raising of a generation of racist religious bigoted sexists.

PS - You do know that equating someone who is in the business of making as much money as they can out of releasing stolen documents regardless of source, content, or adverse impact and regardless of their own personal opinion AND who hides away to avoid the consequences of their own actions (Mr. Assange) with someone who makes their living out of expressing their own personal opinion (Mr. Antunes) doesn't quite work.

I have a CHOICE? :shock: Free speech is a thing, and so is raising kids in ways people like you and me may not like.

PS: Each heroic in their own way; their courage is what equates them to one another.

 

[3leftsdoo]

In 1920, the "Nazi" party had a total of 2,000 paid members.

In December 1924, it managed to gain 3.0% of the popular vote.

In 1932, it increased its popular vote to 37.3%.

In 1933, it increased its popular vote to 43.9%.

In parallel to what you said (slightly amended) "(AT ONE TIME Nazis were a ridiculously tiny group symptomatic of various societal ills.".

As you say "Neo-Nazis are a ridiculously tiny group symptomatic of various societal ills." - to which must be added your oft expressed position "... and a group whose constitutional rights to poison and pollute the minds of the American people we **M*U*S*T** protect at all costs.".

Sounds about right.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

At the L. Ron Hubbard [Private] Elementary School Of Eternal Thetan Empowerment?

No prob.

In other contexts, sounds problematic.

Why would it be problematic?

After all it's only the teacher exercising their inalienable 1st Amendment rights - isn't it?

Why shouldn't the teachers at a school run by "Religious Order A" (which is in receipt of taxpayer provided funds) be allowed to teach their students that all members of "Religion B" are evil and must be killed in order to "Protect God's Work and Defend American Freedom"? Don't they have an inalienable 1st Amendment right to do so?

Why shouldn't the teachers at a state funded public school be allowed to teach their students that "All members of 'Race A' are naturally inferior to 'us REAL people' and must be excluded from society in order to 'protect the purity of God's chosen race'."? Don't they have an inalienable 1st Amendment right to do so?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I have a CHOICE? :shock: Free speech is a thing, and so is raising kids in ways people like you and me may not like.

PS: Each heroic in their own way; their courage is what equates them to one another.

Mr. Antunes is out there where people who don't like him can commit acts of violence upon him because he expresses his own opinion. This does qualify as "courage".

Mr. Assange (until recently) was hiding away from the legal consequences of his own actions DESPITE the fact that no one was likely to be committing violence upon him and DESPITE the fact that he had all of the legal rights of anyone else (admittedly he might actually have had to use some of his own money to pay for his lawyers, but so would anyone else in his position). This does NOT qualify as "courage".

 

[Herkamer63]

AMERICAN NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, PROTESTING A HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE EVENT!? Doesn't surprise me. Socialists tend to do that. Listen to what Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib say about Israel and Jews. Hell, look at who caused the Holocaust to happen. He's the most famous socialist of all and proclaimed his hatred of the Jews everyday. Hitler was a very troubled and delusional socialist ideologist (what socialist isn't delusional). Same with the Left trying to say that today's national socialists are not socialists, even though killing people, which includes babies, or promoting the killing of someone else, which still includes babies, is one of the most socialist things you can do.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Why would it be problematic?

After all it's only the teacher exercising their inalienable 1st Amendment rights - isn't it?

Why shouldn't the teachers at a school run by "Religious Order A" (which is in receipt of taxpayer provided funds) be allowed to teach their students that all members of "Religion B" are evil and must be killed in order to "Protect God's Work and Defend American Freedom"? Don't they have an inalienable 1st Amendment right to do so?

Why shouldn't the teachers at a state funded public school be allowed to teach their students that "All members of 'Race A' are naturally inferior to 'us REAL people' and must be excluded from society in order to 'protect the purity of God's chosen race'."? Don't they have an inalienable 1st Amendment right to do so?

Well, public secondary teachers need to follow curriculum. I don't think Jesus or L. Ron would be on the menu, and very likely not in the way you outline.

All teachers have governors on their speech and conduct.

Private schools are a bit different. They can be a tad wacky.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Mr. Antunes is out there where people who don't like him can commit acts of violence upon him because he expresses his own opinion. This does qualify as "courage".

Mr. Assange (until recently) was hiding away from the legal consequences of his own actions DESPITE the fact that no one was likely to be committing violence upon him and DESPITE the fact that he had all of the legal rights of anyone else (admittedly he might actually have had to use some of his own money to pay for his lawyers, but so would anyone else in his position). This does NOT qualify as "courage".

Agree to disagree.

:cheers:

 

[Rickeroo]

For reference, here's the article, though I can understand why the OP would've been too ashamed to actually link such a disgusting piece of propaganda:

American Nazis, white supremacists protested a Holocaust remembrance event. A university's scholarship is part of the reason why. - CNN

Typical of CNN, they've linked a controversy about a scholarship at Arkansas Tech to a completely unrelated event. Basically, there's a bunch of histrionic totalitarian SJWs who want a scholarship ended because the professor whose estate is funding it is rumored to have assigned graduate students reading material presenting an alternative view of a historical event.

The narrow-mindedness of these people sometimes beggars belief.

Key phrases from the article:

He said he believes Link's intent in 2005 was "probably" to present Holocaust denial as a legitimate, "valid historical viewpoint."
Current university president Robin E. Bowen told CNN in a statement that the university does not condone teaching anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial.
Through our process, we have not found evidence supporting the claims against the late Dr. Michael Link."
There are no plans to return the funds, the university says, and the name of the scholarship will remain.

Despite reporting the facts, CNN wants to paint this as Link himself "denied" the Holocaust and was trying to convert his students.

 

[Erod]

How many Trump voters have to show up with ****in swastikas before you admit maybe the nazi problem is on your side of the aisle.

How many Antifa thugs and Omar/Talib quotes do you need before you see the problem on yours?

And Hitler was a socialist. Not exactly our side of the aisle, and it's your side that detests Israel.