White Supremacist Nazis to Rally in Florida| Rick Scott Declares State of Emergency
124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;52792641]First amendment. They get government funds therefore must follow the constitution. If people don't like this morons ideas ignore him.[/QUOTE]
Hate speech is not protected by the constitution/first amendment.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52792678]Hate speech is not protected by the constitution/first amendment.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. It is.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52792678]Hate speech is not protected by the constitution/first amendment.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. It also has to be since certain groups keep trying to redefine what hate speech is. I don't agree with what this guy says but he IS allowed to say it.
[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;52792641]First amendment. They get government funds therefore must follow the constitution. If people don't like this morons ideas ignore him.[/QUOTE]
I'm for the right to gather and protest, but in the past these events have almost always ended up in violence. How is the campus not liable if I were a UF student just trying to get to class and I was hurt from one of these "protesters"?
I would try to sue the shit out of the UF.
Where do these fucks come out of all of a sudden?!
lmao any sort of violent threat is not protected under the first amendment. How can you literally ignore this fact.
[QUOTE=Mud;52792896]lmao any sort of violent threat is not protected under the first amendment. How can you literally ignore this fact.[/QUOTE]
Where'd you get the idea that hate speech = violent threat?
Stuff like KKK rallies and WBC protests of soldiers' funerals are chock-full of hate speech but they've been repeatedly upheld as protected under the 1st. Actually inciting violence or making threats is what's not protected.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52792899]Where'd you get the idea that hate speech = violent threat?[/QUOTE]
Advocating genocide is pretty violent idk about you
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52792687]Wrong. It is.[/QUOTE]
Oh shit, I forgot to switch timelines where Bernie Sanders is President and Korea is unified as a single nation. My bad.
[QUOTE=Mud;52792901]Advocating genocide is pretty violent idk about you[/QUOTE]
Advocating overthrow of the political system and forcible seizure of property is pretty violent too, but courts protect communists' right to free speech all the same. Our legal system recognizes a distinction between advocating for potentially violent ideology and actively calling for immediate violence, and only the latter falls outside the 1st Amendment.
This issue has been [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.fa6e32ee877c]discussed to death[/url]. Do some basic research.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52792941]Advocating overthrow of the political system and forcible seizure of property is pretty violent too, but courts protect communists' right to free speech all the same. Our legal system recognizes a distinction between advocating for potentially violent ideology and actively calling for immediate violence, and only the latter falls outside the 1st Amendment.
This issue has been [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.fa6e32ee877c]discussed to death[/url]. Do some basic research.[/QUOTE]
Theres a pretty big difference from seizing property to advocating the removal and destruction of an entire race of people but you do you buddy
Btw they're allowed to pick who's covering the event, they can just deny individual journalists' entry if they want so that's pretty hypocritical lol.
These nazis arent violent they just want the removal of all non white people, and possible eradication of all people that dont fit into their narrow idea of humanity
[editline]18th October 2017[/editline]
Completely non violent beliefs being expressed here
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52792841]Where do these fucks come out of all of a sudden?![/QUOTE]
Combination of things, with no real clear end line.
The reality is that most radicalization is done on those which are vulnerable. It's actually quiet common for Nazi groups too actively seek veterans returning from war. The government doesn't give a fuck about vets, but the Nazis? They can feign it just enough and help morph them into their "okay" person.
It's fucked up, but it's basic psychology. The vulnerable are easily lead astray.
[QUOTE=Mud;52792961]Theres a pretty big difference from seizing property to advocating the removal and destruction of an entire race of people but you do you buddy[/QUOTE]
You're the one saying that expressing support for violent ideology constitutes unprotected hate speech, so don't try to split hairs now over which is more violent than the other.
If public support for violent ideologies was considered hate speech, you'd certainly know it when that justification would be used to quash Muslims ('fundamentalist Islam is inherently violent'), Communists (Marx's writing explicitly calls for violence), and [URL="https://robertgraham.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/anarchism.jpg"]basically every anarchist protest ever[/URL]. The law isn't based on your personal notion of how much violence in an ideology is too much, it operates on a rule where supporting an ideology is okay but an immediate, actionable threat is not okay.
This has been a consistent position through decades of judicial review and anyone who claims otherwise is simply [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action"]ignorant of the law[/URL].
[url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html]Brandenburg v. Ohio[/url] upheld that advocating for [I]killing blacks to preserve the white race[/I] was protected free speech so long as it didn't call for immediate violence. How much more clear-cut do you need it to be?
I wanna ask y'all who argue that that they should be allowed to spread their ideals something, and it's genuine, i'm trying to bring the discussion to a relevant point, not 'trap' you with some clever wordplay. The question is, if you will defend the right of Nazis to spread hatred and advocacy of genocide, what do you think about altering the interpretation of the 1st amendment's freedom of speech clauses to not include Nazi rhetoric, or any rhetoric preached to the public in government-owned spaces that calls for the murder of anyone?
There are already exceptions to freedom of speech as established by court rulings over the centuries, therefore, it isn't universally free. It doesn't cover everything; it doesn't mean that you can say anything in public without repercussion. So, there is precedent for exceptions.
If Nazi rhetoric was not allowed to be spoken in public with protection under the 1st amendment (let's say by federal Supreme Court ruling), who would be wrongfully deprived of liberty? What could be the negative repercussions of pushing for this ideal?
As far as I see it, Nazism is worse than the bottom of the barrel of moral positions, it's practically the underside of the barrel. My point is, it can get no lower. Therefore, barring this kind of speech would not wrongfully leave unprotected the speech of any group that does deserve protection.
With those points in mind, I also want to ask a followup question: why is Nazi speech worth defending? Is it the notion that excepting Nazi speech from protection could lead to a slippery slope? I can't think of another reason why it should be defended.
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;52793087]I wanna ask y'all who argue that that they should be allowed to spread their ideals something, and it's genuine, i'm trying to bring the discussion to a relevant point, not 'trap' you with some clever wordplay. The question is, if you will defend the right of Nazis to spread hatred and advocacy of genocide, what do you think about altering the interpretation of the 1st amendment's freedom of speech clauses to not include Nazi rhetoric, or any rhetoric preached to the public in government-owned spaces that calls for the murder of anyone?
There are already exceptions to freedom of speech as established by court rulings over the centuries, therefore, it isn't universally free. It doesn't cover everything; it doesn't mean that you can say anything in public without repercussion. So, there is precedent for exceptions.
If Nazi rhetoric was not allowed to be spoken in public with protection under the 1st amendment (let's say by federal Supreme Court ruling), who would be wrongfully deprived of liberty? What could be the negative repercussions of pushing for this ideal?
As far as I see it, Nazism is worse than the bottom of the barrel of moral positions, it's practically the underside of the barrel. My point is, it can get no lower. Therefore, barring this kind of speech would not wrongfully leave unprotected the speech of any group that does deserve protection.
With those points in mind, I also want to ask a followup question: why is Nazi speech worth defending? Is it the notion that excepting Nazi speech from protection could lead to a slippery slope? I can't think of another reason why it should be defended.[/QUOTE]
What classification will you use to make Nazi speech unacceptable? Because this is a VERY important thing to clarify. We've done this before in America with HUAC. When you make it easy to classify specific groups as unacceptable and not actions, you subject freedom of association/speech to the whims of the reigning party.
And at what point does speech become Nazi speech? Does speaking favorably of Eugenics count? Is it solely advocating for the genocide of a race? Cause if that's all, you're not going to disband the Nazi's by outlawing it. They'll continue recruiting with different rhetoric. If it's the imagery, they'll rebrand and continue preaching. If your restrictions are too broad, you'll anger the right base and swell their numbers dramatically.
If you want to outlaw Naziism you need to be VERY specific on what you're outlawing.
[QUOTE]Heil Trump[/QUOTE]
I like how they still use this as a rallying point
Sorry Trump, your half-assed disapproval in Charlottesville after someone fucking died didn't work out.
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;52793087]The question is, if you will defend the right of Nazis to spread hatred and advocacy of genocide, what do you think about altering the interpretation of the 1st amendment's freedom of speech clauses to not include Nazi rhetoric, or any rhetoric preached to the public in government-owned spaces that calls for the murder of anyone?[/QUOTE]
I am 100% in favor of altering free speech laws to better curtail hate speech, as has proven successful in Europe. I don't see much public utility in protecting hate speech that advocates violence, even as a matter of principle.
That doesn't mean hate speech isn't [i]currently[/i] protected. The legal doctrine is extremely clear-cut, the test that defined the limits of free speech explicitly covers 'advocating for genocide' as protected speech, and everyone in this thread claiming that hate speech isn't covered by the 1st is literally, factually, obviously wrong. Feelings don't override facts.
Why would you want to stop them from assembling though, they're like the biggest argument against themselves and become this self defeating embarrassment when they're out in the open rofl. Kinda looking forward for some more /r/beholdthemasterrace material myself. Though I guess it's pretty shit if you actually go to UF. Admittedly there was a momentary sensation of disbelief before I confirmed that they weren't going to be gathering at my uni.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52793040][url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html]Brandenburg v. Ohio[/url] upheld that advocating for [I]killing blacks to preserve the white race[/I] was protected free speech so long as it didn't call for immediate violence.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit that's retarded. So "kill all the blacks" is fine as long as they don't say "right now" at the end? What constitutes "immediate"?
If you guys want to kill nazi's thankfully there is a game coming out soon that will let you do just that.
[QUOTE=froztshock;52793334]Why would you want to stop them from assembling though, they're like the biggest argument against themselves and become this self defeating embarrassment when they're out in the open rofl. Kinda looking forward for some more /r/beholdthemasterrace material myself. Though I guess it's pretty shit if you actually go to UF. Admittedly there was a momentary sensation of disbelief before I confirmed that they weren't going to be gathering at my uni.[/QUOTE]
you don't want fanatical paranoiacs to start feeling safe in numbers, especially not when a bunch of them are carrying blunt objects and occasionally guns. how violent a Nazi rally gets just depends on how many there are.
You simply can't tolerate intolerance or you're threatening the idea of tolerance itself. These sorts of people will walk all over you trying to play by your rules if you let them and when they're the ones in power, there's nothing you'll be able to do about it.
Hey man everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and if that involves murdering millions of people then that's fine and dandy.
land of the free hoo rah
Well now that you've declared a State of Emergency, don't fuck around. Deploy the National Guard as security and riot control. Violence between far-right and far-left extremists is a growing concern and the worst case scenario is both sides showing up with firearms. The state needs to be ready to step in because law enforcement can't handle that kind of situation.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;52793462]You know exactly what constitutes as "immediate violence". It includes stuff like publicly publishing street addresses of specific individuals and calling for their killing or harming, or encouraging acts of violence against real things or organizations. Not "white people and jews" in the general sense of the word, because those are just the incoherent ramblings.[/QUOTE]
Why would "white people and jews" be incoherent ramblings? White people and jews aren't real? What's more incoherent about calling for the death of a specific demographic than about calling for the death of a specific individual?
The problem with so-called calls for "immediate violence" is that it is followed by violence, right? What exactly is different between someone saying "kill Mr. Pink", followed by the crowd lynching Mr. Pink, and someone saying "kill all blacks", followed by the crowd lynching random black people? How is the latter any better than the former?
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;52793087]I wanna ask y'all who argue that that they should be allowed to spread their ideals something, and it's genuine, i'm trying to bring the discussion to a relevant point, not 'trap' you with some clever wordplay. The question is, if you will defend the right of Nazis to spread hatred and advocacy of genocide, what do you think about altering the interpretation of the 1st amendment's freedom of speech clauses to not include Nazi rhetoric, or any rhetoric preached to the public in government-owned spaces that calls for the murder of anyone?
There are already exceptions to freedom of speech as established by court rulings over the centuries, therefore, it isn't universally free. It doesn't cover everything; it doesn't mean that you can say anything in public without repercussion. So, there is precedent for exceptions.
If Nazi rhetoric was not allowed to be spoken in public with protection under the 1st amendment (let's say by federal Supreme Court ruling), who would be wrongfully deprived of liberty? What could be the negative repercussions of pushing for this ideal?
As far as I see it, Nazism is worse than the bottom of the barrel of moral positions, it's practically the underside of the barrel. My point is, it can get no lower. Therefore, barring this kind of speech would not wrongfully leave unprotected the speech of any group that does deserve protection.
With those points in mind, I also want to ask a followup question: why is Nazi speech worth defending? Is it the notion that excepting Nazi speech from protection could lead to a slippery slope? I can't think of another reason why it should be defended.[/QUOTE]
Nazi speech is worth defending because we don't trust the government to draft good "anti-hate speech" legislature that will adequately stop racism and pro-genocide rhetoric without it being hilariously ineffective or giving the government huge, overreaching power to make the constitution worthless.
is it safe to assume there will be a lot of florida men there?
