At least five people stabbed at neo-Nazi event outside Capitol in Sacramento

[Deuce]

His point was valid, which based on what you wrote above, was missed by you.

No, I didn't miss his point. I applied his point to a different situation.

His point is ridiculous.

 

[Tigerace117]

The local folks were armed with clubs and other weapons - how do you know that they didn't bring knives also?

What do you mean? Obviously, somebody bought knives otherwise nobody would have gotten stabbed.

 

[TheGoverness]

What do you folks think? Should it be okay for people to attack racist neo-Nazi hate groups and cause riots and mayhem to keep them from being able to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights to Peacefully Assemble and that of Freedom of Speech?

Hell no. I don't like Neo-Nazi's one bit, but just because they say ignorant, hateful bull**** is not a justification to attack them and tramble on their 1st Amendment Rights.

Nobody's ideas should be censored, no matter how bigoted or ignorant they may be. Because they have the right to freedom of speech, whether you like it or not.

I say let them shout their ignorant garbage all they want. It only makes them look even stupider than they already are.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Groups like this are so ridiculous and inconsequential that I don't even see the point in counterprotesting them.

 

[MadLib]

When you make excuses to abrogate rights to "protect" rights, no rights are safe, freedom is lost, and tyranny reigns.

Except we do that all the time. People have rights to life and liberty, but if they are a threat to others we consider it just to abrogate that right, whether it be through lethal self-defense or prisons. I would argue that, if fascists are in a position where they can take control of the government and use it to implement their genocidal agenda, violently repressing them is self-defense. Such a point is largely moot anyways, since fascist movements tend to be violent, but even if there was a nonviolent fascist movement that could conceivably gain power I don't see a problem with infringing their right to free speech to protect my own life as a disabled Jew and the lives and happiness of my mixed-race and foreign friends.

How do I control how someone feels?

Could you clarify?

 

[Beaudreaux]

The BoR's ..the First Amendment...is a restriction on government infringement on the people's free speech and right to assemble.

The Constitution as a whole, is a listing of restrictions on the government. The 1st Amendment included.

It is NOT a restriction on the people infringing on the free speech and assembly of other people.

Never said it was. What I did say, is that the rights discussed in the 1st Amendment exist for everyone, are universal fundamental rights that exist absent of government interference or benefaction, and anyone inside or outside the government that does infringe on the rights of others as those did that attacked the neo-Nazis in this instance, have unlawfully infringed upon those rights and in this instance have proven that they are just as intolerable as those that they attacked.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Holy Hategroups, Batman - what could have possibly gone wrong there!?

Anti-fascists against anti-fascists and it went supercritical quickly with law enforcement looking on as if they weren't sure what to do. It's one of those shake-my-head type of events.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Hell no. I don't like Neo-Nazi's one bit, but just because they say ignorant, hateful bull**** is not a justification to attack them and tramble on their 1st Amendment Rights.

Nobody's ideas should be censored, no matter how bigoted or ignorant they may be. Because they have the right to freedom of speech, whether you like it or not.

I say let them shout their ignorant garbage all they want. It only makes them look even stupider than they already are.

It's an ongoing policy of mine to allow all the assholes to have the right and opportunity to self-identify. It makes it easier to figure out who they are, what's on their mind, and how we should prepare for whatever that is.

 

[SMTA]

Anti-fascists against anti-fascists and it went supercritical quickly with law enforcement looking on as if they weren't sure what to do. It's one of those shake-my-head type of events.

Yea, I figured the cops twiddled their thumbs for awhile.

Figures, don't it!?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Groups like this are so ridiculous and inconsequential that I don't even see the point in counterprotesting them.

True, in fact, short of the counter-protest and blood letting, no one would have even known this neo-Nazi group even had this little get together, except for maybe a short mention on the local news. As it is now, it's all over the national news media, and we have a 50 plus post thread going on here, with at least two other threads on the same subject as well.

 

[SMTA]

It's an ongoing policy of mine to allow all the assholes to have the right and opportunity to self-identify. It makes it easier to figure out who they are, what's on their mind, and how we should prepare for whatever that is.

Exactly. In the end, you can usually judge a book by its cover.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yea, I figured the cops twiddled their thumbs for awhile.

Figures, don't it!?

I saw some video earlier that showed some California Highway Patrolmen on horseback riding through the crowd as they the crowd was beating on each other with stick and poles, and the cops were just pointing and yelling - kinda like "Okay, stop that now, and go to time-out."

 

[TheGoverness]

It's an ongoing policy of mine to allow all the assholes to have the right and opportunity to self-identify. It makes it easier to figure out who they are, what's on their mind, and how we should prepare for whatever that is.

Yep. Just let the bigots be bigots. And I believe that we as a society should not want to stop them from exercising their rights because they hold bigoted beliefs.

But unfortunately the PC/SJW Squad doesn't hold that position.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yep. Just let the bigots be bigots. And I believe that we as a society should not want to stop them from exercising their rights because they hold bigoted beliefs.

But unfortunately the PC/SJW Squad doesn't hold that position.

Exactly.

 

[apdst]

In general, no. In extreme circumstances, such as when Nazis are close to gaining power or have just been removed from power, it may be necessary to use force of some kind to prevent them from spreading their ideology. Such violence should be carried out with the goal in mind of relegating fascism to political irrelevancy and should not be wanton. Consider, for example, Germany's laws against fascist parties and Holocaust denial. Those laws, while alien to us due to our consistent climate of political freedom, were necessary to purge the nation of a cancerous ideology that had ruled it with totalitarian control for twelve years.

You're very pro-second amendment, right?

Free speech is obviously one of the most important rights there is, but it is not sacrosanct - every right may need to be abrogated at some point to protect freedom in general. The right of Jews, biracial people, disabled people, LGBT people and others to live their lives without fear of death or deportation ultimately trumps fascists' right to free speech, a right that they would happily trample on if they were in power anyways.

By that logic, nazis can attack groups they don't like. Where does the line lie?

 

[apdst]

Racism qualifies as hate speech no matter what your partisan stripe.

Hate speech isn't illegal. In fact, it's protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[apdst]

The BoR's ..the First Amendment...is a restriction on government infringement on the people's free speech and right to assemble. It is NOT a restriction on the people infringing on the free speech and assembly of other people.

It's a restriction, when the abridgement of their 1st Amendment rights are violated by the use of illegal actiins, like when black people are threatened with physical violence for trying to vote.

 

[iguanaman]

Political correctness has twisted the idea of free speech to the point that free speech is anything that agrees with progressive ideology.
Anything else is hate speech and violent suppression is somehow justified.

Actually this is another instance where political correctness is being challenged. You would be cheering if these were Muslims chanting jihad instead of your beloved Nazi's. These were people taking their city back and 5 got stabbed for it. Why you would cheer for the Nazi's is beyond me.

 

[apdst]

Actually this is another instance where political correctness is being challenged. You would be cheering if these were Muslims chanting jihad instead of your beloved Nazi's. These were people taking their city back and 5 got stabbed for it. Why you would cheer for the Nazi's is beyond me.

It sounds to me like he's cheering for the 1st Amendment. Why would you criticize someone for cheering for the 1st Amendment?

 

[iguanaman]

Yep. Just let the bigots be bigots. And I believe that we as a society should not want to stop them from exercising their rights because they hold bigoted beliefs.

But unfortunately the PC/SJW Squad doesn't hold that position.

I am not saying I agree with these actions since it was so dangerous. But these people were obviously REALLY sick of bigots. They have a right to protest the protests just as much as the protesters.

 

[iguanaman]

It sounds to me like he's cheering for the 1st Amendment. Why would you criticize someone for cheering for the 1st Amendment?

Because indiividuals are not bound by the Constitution to uphold someone else's 1st amendment rights. The U.S. Govt. is. You want the rights of the anti-nazi's to be infringed. Why are the Nazi's rights more important?

 

[Moot]

The Constitution as a whole, is a listing of restrictions on the government. The 1st Amendment included. Never said it was. What I did say, is that the rights discussed in the 1st Amendment exist for everyone, are universal fundamental rights that exist absent of government interference or benefaction, and anyone inside or outside the government that does infringe on the rights of others as those did that attacked the neo-Nazis in this instance, have unlawfully infringed upon those rights and in this instance have proven that they are just as intolerable as those that they attacked.

Not quite. It's only unlawful for the government to infringe on free speech...not the people/citizens... or in this case the counter protestors. The first amendment is NOT a restriction on citizens...aka... the people. The people means the whole body of citizens. So it is NOT unlawful for people to infringe, protest, criticize or counter the free speech and assembly of other people.

However, what is unlawful is the violence.

The government can't infringe, interfere or chose sides while the people are exercising their first amendment rights...unless there is violence. The police only have the authority to prevent or stop the violence and arrest those who incite or commit it.

So if the counter protestors admitted they went to the Neo-Nazi rally to commit violence...then they likely could be arrested and charged for inciting violence. But they can't be arrested for simply going to the rally to protest the Neo-Nazi's. For if it were unlawful for people to infringe on the rights of others...then the Westboro Baptists protesting at LGTB funerals would've been arrested a long time ago. Bikers showing up to protest and prevent the Westboro Baptists from interrupting the funerals...is also free speech and assembly that the government can't interfere with....unless there is violence.

 

[apdst]

Because indiividuals are not bound by the Constitution to uphold someone else's 1st amendment rights. The U.S. Govt. is.

Assault is illegal.

 

[apdst]

Not quite. It's only unlawful for the government to infringe on free speech...not the people/citizens... or in this case the counter protestors. The first amendment is NOT a restriction on citizens...aka... the people. The people means the whole body of citizens. So it is NOT unlawful for people to infringe, protest, criticize or counter the free speech and assembly of other people.

However, what is unlawful is the violence.

The government can't infringe, interfere or chose sides while the people are exercising their first amendment rights...unless there is violence. The police only have the authority to prevent or stop the violence and arrest those who incite or commit it.

So if the counter protestors admitted they went to the Neo-Nazi rally to commit violence...then they likely could be arrested and charged for inciting violence. But they can't be arrested for simply going to the rally to protest the Neo-Nazi's. For if it were unlawful for people to infringe on the rights of others...then the Westboro Baptists protesting at LGTB funerals would've been arrested a long time ago. Bikers showing up to protest and prevent the Westboro Baptists from interrupting the funerals...is also free speech and assembly that the government can't interfere with....unless there is violence.

That must mean that charging someone with a civil rights violation is illegal. Yes?

 

[iguanaman]

Assault is illegal.

Then you need to know who did the assaulting and the stabbing. It seems the anti-nazi's got all of the stab wounds.