wearing a swastika

[Lutherf]

Brawl erupts after elderly man confronts Orange County woman over her swastika armband: report

Authorities in Orange County, California, are recommending hate crime charges against a woman who allegedly hurled anti-Semitic insults at a man who asked her to remove a Nazi armband she was wearing, the Los Angeles Times reports. The woman was sporting the armband while walking around a local...

www.rawstory.com

Woman wearing Nazi emblem made antisemitic comments in Laguna Woods, authorities say

Orange County authorities are recommending hate crime charges against a woman who allegedly yelled antisemitic comments at a man.

www.latimes.com

i defend the right of such assholes to engage in reprehensible acts of political speech, such as publicly burning the American flag or conducting a KKK parade. and for that reason, i would also defend this woman's right to wear a swastika in public

while i find her actions deplorable, they remain legal. what is not legal is attempting to remove her armband by force ... as was the indicated response of 8 men when she refused the request to remove it herself. they were provoked. her actions provoked them
while she has the right to make the political statement of her choice in wearing that nazi armband, that does not give those 8 men sanction to deprive her of her property OR to chill her political speech

when reading the comments ensuing the raw story cite, it became apparent that i may be in the minority on this topic. which then made me wonder, who gets to be the arbiter of political speech/expression when we view it as acceptable to silence those whose political views most of us find to be so distasteful that they are seen as aberrant?

please share any thoughts you may have about this situation

That's life in America these days. The ideological left has been given carte blanche to violently attack whatever offends them and politicians are supporting that behavior. It doesn't work that way for the ideological right of ANY stripe but the left are the majority and, as they see it, they have not only the right but a moral imperative to act against that which offends them. It's the new way "democracy" is viewed and we WILL be going down that path whether we like it or not. If, this day in age, you choose to "turn the other cheek" when a lefty is offended then, as they see it, you are committing violence against them and they are obligated to respond. That's what the "summer of love" was all about. That's what Jussie Smollet was all about. That's what the HUGE payouts to "protesters" in Denver and Austin is all about and it's what the 2020 election was all about.

 

[Fishking]

That's a valid point, but much like it is not protected speech to yell fire in a crowded movie theater, there is a line between what is protected and what is not. Where is that line? I'm not sure.

That said, I am generally not a fan of hate crime laws either. Is shooting a black man because you are greedy and want his money different than shooting a black man because you hate black people? Dead is dead.

As was alluded to earlier, motive normally is not a factor. In fact, while juries always want to know why the defendant did what they supposedly did, motive is not an element of virtually any crime.

Actually, the statement that it's not free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater and not covered by the 1A is false. It's a common misconception that often gets repeated but not corrected.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

Important notes about the case that that quote is taken from (if you don't want to take the time to read it).

1. It had nothing to do with fires or theaters but prosecution by the government of people who peacefully spoke out against the draft in WWI using the Espionage Act. They were convicted and that conviction was a heinous violation of their free speech, as I think you'd agree.
2. It was overturned.
3. It was the judge pontificating about how he justified his opinion and did not hold any legal power.

 

[Fishking]

That makes two of you that are wrong.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

SCOTUS unanimously agreed.

SCOTUS ruled tomatoes are a vegetable and not a fruit. Fact is, they get it wrong sometimes and in this case they did.

 

[Individual]

Same with the okay hand gesture.
I hate cold weather. Any chance I might be prosecuted for a hate crime?

 

[Lutherf]

Hate speech isn't illegal, just assholish. This type of thing has been clearly defined by the courts as being allowed. Hell...the courts ruled Nazis could hold a parade in a town that was specifically targeted for it's high population of Holocaust survivors. It doesn't get much worse than that.

Westboro Baptist was right up there for a while and Snyder v Phelps was a 8-1 decision.

 

[Goshin]

Is speaking anti-semitic slurs and such considered a hate crime now, in and of itself? This is news to me.

It seems like she was walking along, minding her own business (albeit wearing the controversial symbol) until someone confronted her. We're told she said bad things... we're not told what was said to her when the man confronted her and told her to take it off, are we?

Then people tried to manhandle her to take the symbol off... legally that's assault.

I don't see where a hate crime has been committed.... unless maybe it was by those who assaulted her and tried to stop her 1st Amendment freedom of expression.

Don't get me wrong, I hate genuine Nazism... but free speech is free speech even for Nazis, last I checked. I always figure Hey, at least they are marking themselves out so I know who to avoid...

 

[Fishking]

Westboro Baptist was right up there for a while and Snyder v Phelps was a 8-1 decision.

Yeah...those assholes have made a living off of suing people that assaulted them for being said assholes.

 

[Tigerace117]

Today, maybe. Back then, no. More of a don't trust anyone over 30 crowd.

No, the Confederate flag has always been a symbol of the fight to defend slavery. For example....

“ Overt racism was typical in American bases in Vietnam. Although initially uncommon at the start of the war, after the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., overt racism occurred at a higher rate.[3] Following the assassination, some White troops at Cam Ranh Base wore Ku Klux Klan robes and paraded around the base.[6][11]: 183  At least three instances of cross burning were confirmed to have happened.[12] Da Nang Air Base flew the Confederate flag for three days in response.[12][6] In addition to being used in response to King's murder, Confederate flags and icons were commonly painted on jeeps, tanks, and helicopters; bathroom graffiti proclaimed that African Americans, not the Vietnamese, were the real enemy.”

Military history of African Americans in the Vietnam War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I don't think that what incitement to violence is. I might be wrong but I think it covers when you're saying something to get others to do violence on your behalf, not against you. What you're describing seems more like fighting words, and from what I understand reading about the most recent court ruling, fighting words aren't illegal and basically are protected. It started out somewhat broad and not protected by 1A but slowly was narrowed more and more until finally the 1A covered it.

I haven’t been able to find any case that defines who the incitement to commit violence against matters. You may be correct, and maybe you’ll have better luck finding a definitive explanation.

As for the “Brandenburg test”, I believe it remains the standard by which incitement, or “fighting words” are judged.

Case Commentary
“The conditions that must be met to impose criminal liability for speech that incites others to illegal actions are imminent harm, a likelihood that the incited illegal action will occur, and an intent by the speaker to cause imminent illegal actions. This precedent remains the principal standard in this area of First Amendment law, since the Supreme Court has not revisited it. The absence of later decisions may result in part from the standard being constructed in such a way that it is very difficult for the government to meet. The slim possibility of success may make it not worth the effort to promulgate or defend a law in the area in most situations.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio: A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

supreme.justia.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Permissible Restrictions on Violent Speech​

By Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq. | Last updated September 21, 2021
“While Americans have the right to free speech under the First Amendment, that right has exceptions and qualifications. The First Amendment does not protect speech that seeks to incite immediate violence, for example. But what is the line between inciting violence and stating your opinions forcefully? It is a complex and nuanced area of the law.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Permissible Restrictions on Violent Speech - FindLaw

When does a speech with violent rhetoric cross the line into criminal behavior? That is the question the Supreme Court took up in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

supreme.findlaw.com

Again, you may be correct that the woman was lawfully exercising her 1st amendment right.

I believe, based on her actions; dressing all in black, wearing a Nazi swastika armband, entering a community center with mostly, if not all, senior citizens, that it was her intent to incite a negative reaction, up to and including violence.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

To me this is about the same as having a person in a hooded KKK robe hurling the n-word at a group of black individuals. It's hate speech, pure and simple... but in America nowadays, nothing about hate speech is either pure or simple. Creative interpretations are used to muddy the waters, so to speak.

Did they have the right to try to remove the armband? No. But I'm not sure she had the right to display it while using anti-semetic language either.

Of course she had the right. First Amendment, baby. It protects the speech we like. More importantly, it protects the speech we don't like.

 

[Fishking]

I haven’t been able to find any case that defines who the incitement to commit violence against matters. You may be correct, and maybe you’ll have better luck finding a definitive explanation.

As for the “Brandenburg test”, I believe it remains the standard by which incitement, or “fighting words” are judged.

Case Commentary
“The conditions that must be met to impose criminal liability for speech that incites others to illegal actions are imminent harm, a likelihood that the incited illegal action will occur, and an intent by the speaker to cause imminent illegal actions. This precedent remains the principal standard in this area of First Amendment law, since the Supreme Court has not revisited it. The absence of later decisions may result in part from the standard being constructed in such a way that it is very difficult for the government to meet. The slim possibility of success may make it not worth the effort to promulgate or defend a law in the area in most situations.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio: A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

supreme.justia.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Permissible Restrictions on Violent Speech​

By Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq. | Last updated September 21, 2021
“While Americans have the right to free speech under the First Amendment, that right has exceptions and qualifications. The First Amendment does not protect speech that seeks to incite immediate violence, for example. But what is the line between inciting violence and stating your opinions forcefully? It is a complex and nuanced area of the law.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Permissible Restrictions on Violent Speech - FindLaw

When does a speech with violent rhetoric cross the line into criminal behavior? That is the question the Supreme Court took up in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

supreme.findlaw.com

Again, you may be correct that the woman was lawfully exercising her 1st amendment right.

I believe, based on her actions; dressing all in black, wearing a Nazi swastika armband, entering a community center with mostly, if not all, senior citizens, that it was her intent to incite a negative reaction, up to and including violence.

Even in your own definition, at best, everyone gets charged, not just her as it states in your underlined emphasis, it "causes imminent illegal actions". I think she's still covered but and, even if I'm wrong, no one walks away without charges.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It really depends on the insults. Calling someone a Stupid Jew or Christ Killer are insults but don’t raise to the level of placing hands on someone. Saying you got an oven at home waiting for someone’s wife and kids or you have their grandparents in your cars ash tray would probably raise to the level of fists.

Words, unless they are a direct threat ("I'm going to kill you"), are not sufficient to excuse violence.

 

[CLAX1911]

I haven’t been able to find any case that defines who the incitement to commit violence against matters. You may be correct, and maybe you’ll have better luck finding a definitive explanation.

As for the “Brandenburg test”, I believe it remains the standard by which incitement, or “fighting words” are judged.

Case Commentary
“The conditions that must be met to impose criminal liability for speech that incites others to illegal actions are imminent harm, a likelihood that the incited illegal action will occur, and an intent by the speaker to cause imminent illegal actions. This precedent remains the principal standard in this area of First Amendment law, since the Supreme Court has not revisited it. The absence of later decisions may result in part from the standard being constructed in such a way that it is very difficult for the government to meet. The slim possibility of success may make it not worth the effort to promulgate or defend a law in the area in most situations.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio: A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

supreme.justia.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Permissible Restrictions on Violent Speech​

By Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq. | Last updated September 21, 2021
“While Americans have the right to free speech under the First Amendment, that right has exceptions and qualifications. The First Amendment does not protect speech that seeks to incite immediate violence, for example. But what is the line between inciting violence and stating your opinions forcefully? It is a complex and nuanced area of the law.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio: Permissible Restrictions on Violent Speech - FindLaw

When does a speech with violent rhetoric cross the line into criminal behavior? That is the question the Supreme Court took up in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

supreme.findlaw.com

Again, you may be correct that the woman was lawfully exercising her 1st amendment right.

I believe, based on her actions; dressing all in black, wearing a Nazi swastika armband, entering a community center with mostly, if not all, senior citizens, that it was her intent to incite a negative reaction, up to and including violence.

Well yeah it's obviously done in order to trigger a negative reaction.

But someone trying to trigger a negative reaction is not necessarily an incitement to violence.

 

[Goshin]

Incitement to violence would be her telling a crowd of fellow travelers they ought to attack Jews.

Wearing a swastika or using some slurs when confronted? Doubtful.

Sure, she's a hateful bitch, I don't doubt that. But that's not an excuse to lay hands on her, not under the law.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm not sure what she should be charged with.

If people are justified putting their hands on her because they are offended then if I were to walk through a very conservative very Christian elderly community with my partner who is the same sex as me and we're both wearing shirts that say just married to each other and they would have the right to come and put their hands on us and I don't think that's okay.

I'm with you I understand this community's reaction to it but it's not okay to put your hands on somebody and you shouldn't charge the person who had the hands put on them with a crime and it's not a crime to walk around wearing things that other people find offensive.

If you cross that Rubicon then I in my partner will not be able to walk around wearing rainbow shirts

The example of you and your same sex partner wearing t-shirts that say “just married to each other” doesn’t present a threatening/inciting message.

Like I said in my first post, I don’t approve of anyone laying hands on anyone either, but I do understand their anger.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

OR to chill her political speech

This is where you lost me. I completely agree with the sentiment up until here. Obviously those individuals going out and enacting some kind of vigilantism is bad, but it is I think a moral imperative to chill the speech of open Nazis.

Make fun of them. Yell at them. Let them know they aren't welcome here and have no place in America. Don't allow them the dignity of treating their views as a serious political position.

 

[Goshin]

The example of you and your same sex partner wearing t-shirts that say “just married to each other” doesn’t present a threatening/inciting message.

Like I said in my first post, I don’t approve of anyone laying hands on anyone either, but I do understand their anger.

I absolutely understand their anger.

What I don't understand it why the men were not charged with assault for laying hands on her.

If a bunch of rednecks grabbed some guy and tried to tear off his Malcom-X t-shirt, you can rest assured they'd be charged with assault and probably a hate crime. This really isn't very different, legally, except that the woman's choice of expression is more controversial and more against community standards.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

SCOTUS ruled tomatoes are a vegetable and not a fruit. Fact is, they get it wrong sometimes and in this case they did.

Yes, and no.

“Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations, the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit.[1] The Court's unanimous opinion held that the Tariff Act of 1883 used the ordinary meaning of the words "fruit" and "vegetable," instead of the technical botanical meaning.”

Nix v. Hedden - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Regardless of Nix, until, or unless, SCOTUS reverses itself on Wisconsin (extremely doubtful), it’s ruling is the law of the land.

 

[Logician Man]

The ideological left has been given carte blanche to violently attack whatever offends them and politicians are supporting that behavior..

Link? Or merely putting forth over-the-top, hyperbolic, partisan BS?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Well yeah it's obviously done in order to trigger a negative reaction.

But someone trying to trigger a negative reaction is not necessarily an incitement to violence.

If it was her intent, that is incitement.

 

[NolanVoyd]

She had a right to wear the armband. She also needs to understand that her actions have consequences.

Take this for example. (It works, just click "watch on youtube")



If the government said he couldn't wear it that would violate the first.

On the other hand I have no problem with the guy that knocked him out. He isn't the government.. He committed assault. If caught, the video would prove him guilty of assault. I am sure he would wear such a conviction as a badge of honor.

Perhaps if decent Germans had refused to tolerate Nazis in the beginning history would be very different. (Perhaps they didn't understand what Nazis were about, we don't have that excuse).

Never again!

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I absolutely understand their anger.

What I don't understand it why the men were not charged with assault for laying hands on her.

If a bunch of rednecks grabbed some guy and tried to tear off his Malcom-X t-shirt, you can rest assured they'd be charged with assault and probably a hate crime. This really isn't very different, legally, except that the woman's choice of expression is more controversial and more against community standards.

I have no problem with charging the people that forcibly removed the woman’s armband after she “hurled anti-Semitic insults” at them.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

That's life in America these days. The ideological left has been given carte blanche to violently attack whatever offends them and politicians are supporting that behavior. It doesn't work that way for the ideological right of ANY stripe but the left are the majority and, as they see it, they have not only the right but a moral imperative to act against that which offends them.

I mean, it was hardly the far ideological left that went and joined WWII. I would hope both conservatives and liberals would be offended by a Nazi and carry on the moral imperative to act we felt in the 1940s. Not sure why you are acting like it is only the left that would be offended by Nazis, even I hold most conservatives in higher regard than that.

 

[CLAX1911]

If it was her intent, that is incitement.

I don't see how it was. Wearing an armband does not say to anyone put your hands on me.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I mean, it was hardly the far ideological left that went and joined WWII. I would hope both conservatives and liberals would be offended by a Nazi and carry on the moral imperative to act we felt in the 1940s. Not sure why you are acting like it is only the left that would be offended by Nazis, even I hold most conservatives in higher regard than that.

Anti fascists in action.