NC KKK leader: 'I'm glad that girl died' during Virginia protest - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52579221]Perhaps put them on a rocket headed towards the sun?[/QUOTE]give them their own planet and then blockade it with nuclear-armed satellites

To all the neo-nazis racists rednecks; what goes around comes around: [video=youtube;zyJ0oeC1g-c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJ0oeC1g-c[/video]

I don't know if I can express my thought here as I might get banned. Fucking scum.

Despite how vile the whole nazi ideology is, people like this being able to march on the street is a good metric for the health of our democracy. As long as the most unpopular opinions are still allowed a venue then i am safe in the knowledge that our country still believes in the principles of free speech and assembly. As long as scum like this are allowed to take to the streets with their nonsense then i know we are still far from a dictatorship. Ill wait for the boxes now.....

[quote]Despite how vile the whole nazi ideology is, people like this being able to march on the street is a good metric for the health of our democracy. [/quote] No, it's pretty bad news for the health of our democracy that there are nazis enough to march on the street to begin with.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581717]No, it's pretty bad news for the health of our democracy that there are nazis enough to march on the street to begin with.[/QUOTE] But isint the whole idea of free speech to protect unpopular opinions? If we start denying this group their constitutional rights then it's a slippery slope into censoring anything that is not "politically correct"

[quote]But isint the whole idea of free speech to protect unpopular opinions?[/quote] No. The whole idea of free speech is to protect you from the government when you give your opinions. It doesn't protect you when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It doesn't protect you when you tell someone you're going to slash their throats that night. Similarly, it doesn't protect you when you decide to organize a murder-gang who roam the streets yelling that you're all going to murder people and that they all deserve to die while armed to the teeth.

How cartoonishly evil can you be jfc [editline]17th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581743]No. The whole idea of free speech is to protect you from the government when you give your opinions. It doesn't protect you when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It doesn't protect you when you tell someone you're going to slash their throats that night. Similarly, it doesn't protect you when you decide to organize a murder-gang who roam the streets yelling that you're all going to murder people and that they all deserve to die while armed to the teeth.[/QUOTE] Threats of violence and criminal damage and inciting immediate mass panic aren't really the same as unpopular opinions tbh

[quote]threats of violence and criminal damage and inciting immediate mass panic aren't really the same as unpopular opinions tbh[/quote] Agreed, and that's why Nazis aren't giving unsolicited opinions on subjects that folks dislike - they're making naked threats on the lives of those around them - which is why the First Amendment doesn't protect their 'speech'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581743]No. The whole idea of free speech is to protect you from the government when you give your opinions. It doesn't protect you when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It doesn't protect you when you tell someone you're going to slash their throats that night.[/QUOTE] If they engage or advocate illegal activities then im all for arresting them. but keeping people from expressing their views in public only makes things worse. Censorship breeds a sense of persecution, and a sense of persecution can lead to violence. our nation has free speech for a reason, it allows unpopular opinions to be expressed and it allows society to ostracize them instead of the government stepping in to persecute and imprison. This is what helps prevent widespread political upheaval.

[quote]our nation has free speech for a reason, it allows unpopular opinions to be expressed and it allows society to ostracize them instead of the government stepping in to persecute and imprison. This is what helps prevent widespread political upheaval.[/quote] The opinion of me and my five hundred best buds who're all equipped with automatic rifles and are marching with torches outside your home is that you should die because you aren't 'pure' and don't have the same skin color we do. Please tell me when you feel my right to free speech has gone too far. Is it when we start placing weapons on your lawn? Is it when we start waving our guns in the air? Is it when we start chanting the names of your family members, where they go during the day, and when they're most vulnerable? Is it when we state you'll be dead by the end of the year? Is it when I ask my fellow buds who's willing to kill you and they all shout they will? Is it when we're all checking our weapons and making sure they're ready to fire? Is it when I ask what sort of ammunition they're using while discussing the width of the walls of your residence? Is it when I ask who is willing to die to ensure you don't make it through the night and for them to prove it by cutting off their pinkie finger - and they all do so and smear the blood on your windows? At what point do our 'opinions' stop being 'opinions' and start to become threats?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581763]The opinion of me and my five hundred best buds who're all equipped with automatic rifles and are marching with torches outside your home is that you should die because you aren't pure. Please tell me when you feel my right to free speech has gone too far. Is it when we start placing weapons on your lawn? Is it when we start waving our guns in the air? Is it when we start chanting the names of your family members, where they go during the day, and when they're most vulnerable? Is it when we state you'll be dead by the end of the year? At what point do our 'opinions' stop being 'opinions'?[/QUOTE] opinions stop being just that when you start advocating criminal activity, Feel your being harassed? talk to the police. But it's no reason to curtail the 1st amendment just because you find the opinions of others unsettling.

[quote]opinions stop being just that when you start advocating criminal activity[/quote] Great! So, literally: Nazis [B]do not have[/B] opinions because all their 'opinions' are statements that they will engage in criminal activities and psyching themselves up for those criminal activities. I'm glad we could remove the first amendment from this discussion entirely on good terms; I was worried you'd might start to say 'they're entitled to make threats on your life'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581780]Great! So, literally: Nazis [B]do not have[/B] opinions because all their 'opinions' are criminal activities and psyching themselves up for those criminal activities.[/QUOTE] Theres speech then there is advocating immediate violence or other criminal activity, whats so hard about that for people to understand?

[quote]Theres speech then is advocating immediate violence or other criminal activity, whats so hard about that for people to understand?[/quote] OK, cool, so since the violence isn't immediate I can tell you that me and my friends will be clubbing you to death at some point in the future? Good to hear. Glad you're willing to defend our right to say that. We promise to go easy on your family, though of course they'll have to die too. Edit: Find me some speech from a Nazi that doesn't advocate violence or criminal activity and I'll tell you where the violence/threat is. Hint: They're all for global genocide of mass proportions - they are about advocating for that global genocide, that's who they are.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581785]OK, cool, so since the violence isn't immediate I can tell you that me and my friends will be clubbing you to death at some point in the future? Good to hear. Glad you're willing to defend our right to say that. We promise to go easy on your family, though of course they'll have to die too.[/QUOTE] So you would say screw the first amendment just because someone else's opinions stir up an emotional reaction in yourself? Like i said if you believe you are being threatened then go to the police. Terroristic threats are still a crime after all, and id fully support the prosecution of anyone threatening you or your family. But if they are marching down the street expressing their opinions and not causing any trouble except for those looking for it. Then it's their right weather you like it or not.

[quote]Terroristic threats are still a crime after all, and id fully support the prosecution of anyone threatening you or your family.[/quote] I don't know are they? You seem to really want them not to be because you want us to have our opinions protected by the first amendment. Our opinions that you should die and how we'd like to kill you, that is. [quote]So you would say screw the first amendment just because someone else's opinions stir up an emotional reaction in yourself? [/quote] I would say everything we're saying are Fighting Words (the legal sort of) and are therefore exempt from First Amendment protections - whether you like that idea or not. In fact, since you seem hellbent on allowing us to threaten you you're actually making them [I]not[/I] fighting words and are thus reinforcing our ability to state them. "Fighting Words - Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/315/568][Link to Supreme Court case][/url]"

[QUOTE=andy85258;52581772]opinions stop being just that when you start advocating criminal activity, Feel your being harassed? talk to the police. But it's no reason to curtail the 1st amendment just because you find the opinions of others unsettling.[/QUOTE] "Jews don't have a right to life" Yeah, right there? That's a pretty typical nazi sentiment, and I don't have to be jewish to understand that's a threat. There aint no dance for you to do around this, it is what it is. [editline]16th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=andy85258;52581803]So you would say screw the first amendment just because someone else's opinions stir up an emotional reaction in yourself? Like i said if you believe you are being threatened then go to the police. Terroristic threats are still a crime after all, and id fully support the prosecution of anyone threatening you or your family. But if they are marching down the street expressing their opinions and not causing any trouble except for those looking for it. Then it's their right weather you like it or not.[/QUOTE] The police didn't help. They stood by and watched things get worse. The government implicitly is supporting the Nazis, and you think there's nothing to do but go tell an adult basically? Does appeasement, and Nazis, not bring back some bad memories from high school history for you guys, or what?

[quote]There aint no dance for you to do around this, it is what it is.[/quote] But HumanAbyss, andy85258 has proven himself an expert of what Nazis often say in marches and the like - obviously you're just taking them out of context. Typically, Nazis just say things like 'We're here! Your Fear! Get over it (and into the gas chamber)!" and "It is our opinion that the democratic republic which we presently are stepping on deserves to be replaced by a Fascist state as the present government is doing its people a disservice by allowing non-whites to breed at a rate faster than whites!" right? [quote]Does appeasement, and Nazis, not bring back some bad memories from high school history for you guys, or what?[/quote] With how some folks treat it, I think they almost don't think it happened at all - that it was some grand exaggeration that some old fart wrote in a book one time because he got really offended by the thin moustache of that one dude and that others repeated it because, I dunno, they all hated him irrationally.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581809]I don't know are they? You seem to really want them not to be because you want us to have our opinions protected by the first amendment. Our opinions that you should die and how we'd like to kill you, that is. I would say everything we're saying are Fighting Words (the legal sort of) and are therefore exempt from First Amendment protections - whether you like that idea or not. In fact, since you seem hellbent on allowing us to threaten you you're actually making them [I]not[/I] fighting words and are thus reinforcing our ability to state them. "Fighting Words - Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/315/568][Link to Supreme Court case][/url]"[/QUOTE] But im not advocating for threats, im for the free speech of all americans unlike some who want to crap on the constitution because "muh feelings". What's next if these people are no longer allowed their right to free assembly? banning of ther groups as well? will noone else be allowed to go out and protest because it might go against someones sensibilities ? where does it end?

[quote]But im not advocating for threats, im for the free speech of all americans unlike some who want to crap on the constitution because "muh feelings". What's next if these people are no longer allowed their right to free assembly? banning of ther groups as well? will noone else be allowed to go out and protest because someones feelings might get hurt?[/quote] You are advocating for threats if you're advocating for the sort of 'speech' Nazis employ. Again, here is the Supreme Court's opinion on what "Fighting Words" (that do [I]not[/I] get First Amendment protections) entail: [quote][...] the statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," [B]words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats[/B]. We are unable to say that the limited scope of the statute as thus construed contravenes the Constitutional right of free expression. It is a statute narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, [B]the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace[/B].[/quote] I reiterate that this opinion by the Supreme Court is the [I]Law of the Land[/I] as goes 'free speech' and that the speech deployed by Nazis [I]absolutely[/I] falls into the realm of Fighting Words. This opinion has been on the books since 1942 and we [I]still[/I] are able to protest and demonstrate today. What happens if Nazis are no longer allowed their right to free assembly so long as they continue to spew the violent rhetoric of their murder-cult (which they have no words in their 'social dictionary' that do not include violence that rises to the level of Fighting Words by necessity as they literally [B]cannot advocate for their group without specific threats of violence[/B]) is that the [I]world becomes a better place[/I].

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581852]You are advocating for threats if you're advocating for the sort of 'speech' Nazis employ. Again, here is the Supreme Court's opinion on what "Fighting Words" (that do [I]not[/I] get First Amendment protections) entail: I reiterate that this opinion by the Supreme Court is the [I]Law of the Land[/I] as goes 'free speech' and that the speech deployed by Nazis [I]absolutely[/I] falls into the realm of Fighting Words. This opinion has been on the books since 1942 and we [I]still[/I] are able to protest and demonstrate today. What happens if Nazis are no longer allowed their right to free assembly so long as they continue to spew the violent rhetoric of their murder-cult (which they have no words in their 'social dictionary' that do not include violence that rises to the level of Fighting Words by necessity as they literally [B]cannot advocate for their group without specific threats of violence[/B]) is that the [I]world becomes a better place[/I].[/QUOTE] If the SC considered these nazi marches "fighting words" they would of been stopped a long time ago. Clearly the courts hold a different opinion than you.

[QUOTE=andy85258;52581834]But im not advocating for threats, im for the free speech of all americans unlike some who want to crap on the constitution because "muh feelings". What's next if these people are no longer allowed their right to free assembly? banning of ther groups as well? will noone else be allowed to go out and protest because it might go against someones sensibilities ? where does it end?[/QUOTE] That is the emptiest slipperiest slope I've ever read. What would cause this? You can't or haven't said as of yet, so I'm not leaning towards you having a good answer here. This isn't about "Muh feelings". This is about "My right to exist". Maybe you should go back to high school and have a basic history course about the Nazis, and what it means when a modern person self proclaims as such [editline]16th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=andy85258;52581858]If the SC considered these nazi marches "fighting words" they would of been stopped a long time ago. Clearly the courts hold a different opinion than you.[/QUOTE] Unless you're trolling, you would know that the SC doesn't respond that quickly to the changes in events. A week is not long enough for them to consider the actions of these Nazis, if that was even on their docket, which it isn't. Can you yell fire in a theatre? Can you threaten a person with direct violence? With round about violence? Where does a genocidal threat lie? Is that a direct threat, or too broad to prosecute?

[quote]If the SC considered these nazi marches "fighting words" they would of been stopped a long time ago. Clearly the courts hold a different opinion than you.[/quote] I just gave you their opinion. [U]That is their opinion.[/U] Bring another case through the criminal justice system and keep appealing it until it gets to the Supreme Court. I promise you they'll tell you they've already ruled on that sort of thing and cite this exact opinion because that was the opinion they were asked to give and so it has already been interpreted and decided. The Supreme Court does not go around flying on broomsticks to every site of violence in the United States. They are not immediately aware of every breach to their opinions that occurs and they are always buried in complex and difficult legal opinions besides - oft too busy to give snappy responses to current affairs. For this opinion to be enforced, people must be aware of it in law enforcement and may thus act on it. It's plainly obvious that the police on site either do not know about 'Fighting Words' or chose to ignore them.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52581860]That is the emptiest slipperiest slope I've ever read. What would cause this? You can't or haven't said as of yet, so I'm not leaning towards you having a good answer here. This isn't about "Muh feelings". This is about "My right to exist". Maybe you should go back to high school and have a basic history course about the Nazis, and what it means when a modern person self proclaims as such[/QUOTE] They are allowed their right to protest as long as they engage in no illegal activity. You might not like it but thats how the courts see the whole thing.

[quote]You might not like it but thats how the courts see the whole thing.[/quote] The [B]Courts[/B] have nothing to do with it! None of them were [I]arrested[/I] and a Court can't have an opinion on a criminal violation unless that violation is [I]brought before them[/I]. This is a problem of the police, not of the courts!

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581883]The [B]Courts[/B] have nothing to do with it! None of them were [I]arrested[/I] and a Court can't have an opinion on a criminal violation unless that violation is [I]brought before them[/I]. This is a problem of the police, not of the courts![/QUOTE] Then the police should arrest anyone inciting violence or engaging in it. But for some reason i see most of them standing down during these types of incidents. Why is that?

[quote]But for some reason i see most of them standing down during these types of incidents. Why is that?[/quote] Maybe because they believe, like you, that said speech is 'protected' somehow. Maybe because they're poorly trained? Maybe some of them are turning a blind eye on purpose? Maybe because they're just not doing their job, either lazy or scared (and on that second one I can't really blame them - but doing their job is the job). Maybe because folks like you keep saying 'they have the right to do that!' often enough that the cops believe that must be how it is. It's a good question and I don't have an answer for you. What I do know is that there should have been arrests and yet only one person, who committed murder, was arrested despite -- [B]easily[/B] -- the protesters disturbing a whole [I]smattering[/I] of peaces. At the very [U]least[/U] the protest should've been forcibly disbanded.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581896]Maybe because they believe, like you, that said speech is 'protected' somehow. Maybe because they're poorly trained? Maybe because they're just not doing their job. Maybe because folks like you keep saying 'they have the right to do that!' often enough that the cops believe that must be how it is. It's a good question and I don't have an answer for you. What I do know is that there should have been arrests and yet only one person, who committed murder, was arrested despite -- [B]easily[/B] -- the protesters disturbing a whole [I]smattering[/I] of peaces.[/QUOTE] Then those cops should be either fired or arrested for willful failure to maintain order.

I find it somewhat amusing when the KKK align themselves with Nazis when they were targeted in a 1944 Nazi propaganda poster [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Liberators-Kultur-Terror-Anti-Americanism-1944-Nazi-Propaganda-Poster.jpg[/img]