No idea but thought I read once where majority of them would be satisfied with simply moving out of their mom's trailer and into one of their own. Ya know...... Pride of ownership ??

I suppose it's the news outlets' way of combining white supremacists and nationalists.

I will say, today's events were troubling, but I'm disturbed (though not surprised) at how one sided the coverage is and placing of blame.

Agree with them or not, the "white nationalists" had every right to come and protest today. Yes, they came armed and ready for a fight. You know why? Because the counter protesters were going to be there to pick a fight with them.

Fortunately, most public officials have denounced violence from both sides, but if you watch the news anchors and talking heads only, you'd think the Nazi party and KKK came to Charleston and just started rioting and looting unprovoked.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Ive read a little more. They look pretty badass with their dollar store tiki torches.

But basically racist idiots. And now someone is a murderer because he plowed his car into them. Talk about flushing your life down the toilet.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

'Racist Idiots' is close enough, though perhaps an insult to idiots. Given it's a tiny fraction of the population I'd prefer they got no media coverage/attention and they don't deserve a counter protest. Then again, they don't deserve air but it's a free country and they can demonstrate if they so choose.

For what it's worth, they've always been around - this is not a new or political phenomenon.

The car was driven into the counter-protesters, not the racist idiots.

Do you know what that same white nationalist's definition of "augmentation" is?

When they blow up their single wide into a double wide! (Possibly due to a moonshine still mishap or meth lab gone awry)

That tends to happen when one side gets one killed and 19 injured and the other side doesn't.

Granted, that's based on initial evidence, and could change. But it sure looks, initially, like the racist side drove a car into the anti-racist side.

Impossible. I've been told on here that only crazy lefties do that sort of thing.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

James Alex Fields Jr. has been identified as the the driver who drove his Dodge Challenger into a street congested with counter protestor pedestrians in Charlottesville, Virginia earlier today. His alleged action led to the death of a yet to be identified 32 year old woman and several critical injuries.
According to EverPedia, Fields Jr. is a “resident of Maumee, Ohio​. He is registered to vote in Lucas County, Ohio​ and put his party affiliation as Republican]​In addition, James is registered as the owner of a Gray 2010 Dodge Challenger​ that ran into protesters at the Unite the Right​ rally.​” He also is reported to have served in in the US military. From August 18th to December 11th, 2015, James was listed as an Active Duty Service Member in the United States Army​.
Earlier today the Charlottesville Chief of Police announced that they had Mr. Fields in custody and while charges were pending, they were investigating this as a homicide.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

you can feed your brain in excess to the point of brainwashing yourself so easily with the internet now. Pic anything and let er rip. The moment you think you are not vulnerable is when you are most at risk.

---

sometimes

One "source" says the police do not think this was intentional. That doesn't mean he won't be charged, but it certainly changes the nature of the charges.

http://coed.com/...er-protest-injuries/

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Interesting. Your link says that a source said he was scared after his car was swarmed. That brings up an interesting question. If he had a right to drive on the street and people were swarming his car to the point that he felt afraid for his safety - could he be justified in accelerating his car in an attempt to get out of danger?

I think they meant he fled out of fear. I THINK the source is saying he lost control of his car somehow and hit the car that hit the people. His car was then swarmed, which caused him to high tail it out of there. Again, this is just my interpretation of what the "source" is saying, not my theory of what happened.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

According to NBC News, Fields was just booked for second degree murder. Second degree is intentional, but not with premeditation. So, it does not appear the source in the link I posted previously was correct.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

In Virginia, I don't think 2nd Degree murder requires intent. For example, felony murder is 2nd degree murder. So if you were committing a robbery and someone accidentally dies as a result of your felony act, it would be 2nd degree murder.

In fact, I think there are 1st degree murder scenarios that wouldn't require intent, in Virginia. Not sure how that stacks up with other States, but in VA, I think Capital Murder always requires intent and premeditation, but not necessarily 1st or 2nd degree.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Also, kind of odd that he apparently was in the Army for only about 4 months.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Is there a tendency to overcharge in highly public cases. I.e. it calms the public and then if it is really an accident the charges are reduced after a long trial or the person is found innocent.

Ah! You are correct. Good catch.

§ 18.2-32. First and second degree murder defined; punishment.
Murder, other than capital murder, by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, robbery, burglary or abduction, except as provided in § 18.2-31, is murder of the first degree, punishable as a Class 2 felony.
All murder other than capital murder and murder in the first degree is murder of the second degree and is punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than forty years.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yes, there is a tendency to do so. He was booked on second degree murder, but will not be arraigned (charged) until Monday. But slowguy caught that second degree murder in Virginia does not require intent. See the statute I posted above. The VA statute is a little unusual, but not unheard of.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Someone who isn't a democrat. Doesn't actually have to be a white person but that helps.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I lived there for 13 years. That is a one way between main and water on 4 th Ave. The car was observed idling on the far side of main, only way it could hit these speeds.
The driving was intentional, even if the death wasn't

---

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements

Must have been a real gem if the US Army didn't want to keep him after only 4 months.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/...m-explained.amp.html

Nytimes attempt to explain white nationalism and distinguish it from white supremacy:

"White nationalism, he said, is the belief that national identity should be built around white ethnicity, and that white people should therefore maintain both a demographic majority and dominance of the nation’s culture and public life.

So, like white supremacy, white nationalism places the interests of white people over those of other racial groups. White supremacists and white nationalists both believe that racial discrimination should be incorporated into law and policy.

Some will see the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacy as a semantic sleight of hand. But although many white supremacists are also white nationalists, and vice versa, Professor Kaufmann says the terms are not synonyms: White supremacy is based on a racist belief that white people are innately superior to people of other races; white nationalism is about maintaining political and economic dominance, not just a numerical majority or cultural hegemony.

I think it really helps to be white person. I get the impression that non-white wouldn't be terribly welcome in this part of the really.

I hope they give that white terrorist motherfucker the death penalty...

---

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

I hope they give that white terrorist motherfucker the death penalty...


Anyone who hints that the driver didn't do this intentionally, is delusional.

On the news just now, a woman who was there said ''I didn't know it was white supremacists. I thought it was a rally for Trump. He has nothing to do with white supremacy,right?''

Yea, right!?

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

It's plausible that while he was wearing his Nazi uniform his car was swarmed and he panicked.

Not saying that is what happened but it's plausible.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

''(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.''

While you explanation seems possible, it doesn't seem to be reasonable or probable.

In the video, it looks like he is driving into the swarm of people not away. Then he jambs it in reverse and gets out of there.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Driver has been charged

''James Fields Jr., 20, is being held at the Albermarle-Charlottesville County Regional Jail on suspicion of second-degree murder, malicious wounding and failure to stop in an accident that resulted in death. A jail official confirmed Fields was being held there Saturday evening.''

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

If his car was being swarmed and he actually feared for his life (people screaming "I am going to kill you!!!" Might do that) I thinks it's reasonable to expect that person to panic and step on the gas.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

That's the most stupidest bullshit I ever heard. That motherfucker is a white supremacist domestic terrorist and killed that innocent woman intentionally in broad daylight. Sessions should charge that sub-human monster with a hate crime and death penalty.

---

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

If,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if

As Joe Friday used to say ''Just give me the facts, mam''

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

He can't be charged with a hate crime.

Do you support the death penalty in other cases?

Not sure why the Attorney General of the United States would have jurisdiction here, but as far as Virginia goes, hate crimes require that the crime was committed against someone because of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin. As far as I can tell, assaulting someone because they believe differently than you isn't covered.

Maybe, instead of calling in the Federal govt and insisting on hate crimes prosecution, we should wait for the actual fact of the case to be put forward.

I know, that's not nearly as much fun as just venting and demanding justice, but it is kind of how our criminal justice system is designed to work, so....

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Are you always ruled by your emotions?

you do understand that his guilt will need to be proven, right?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

The driver is white. What more proof do you need?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Trump Akbar!

Sort of an aside here.....

The video looks bad and I really have no idea as to the state of mind of the driver but have you (or anyone else here) been in a car surrounded by "protesters"?

I have. Once at the beginning of the LA riots and once at Cornell University.

Both times it happened I thought I was going to be killed.

Did I run people over? No. I accepted that I was living my last moments.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Do you call the evil in Charlottesville hatred committed by white nationalists?

---

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

I don't know what you are asking me. Your ramblings are incoherent. Try to calm down and use your words.

What I know is the same as you; we don't know what happened. We can surmise, we can guess but at this point we are short on facts.

Yes, it certainly looks like the driver ran over people on purpose. But it also looks like the actions of a panic stricken driver who just wants to get the hell out of that situation.

Good thing for the driver you won't be deciding his fate.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I have not experienced this. But I can understand how someone would flip the panic switch and do something stupid.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I'll give you this, your stories are always interesting.

I'll make it simple for you. Did a white nationalist murder that innocent woman? Yes or no.

---

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

I have no idea. Neither do you.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

It's in line with him not having a panic switch. My brother is like that. He was once got caught in a rip tide. He used his brain and got out of it. Many people would panic and end up dying.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Did the protesters throwing bricks off of UIC's parking garage commit attempted murder?

As to your question the only thing that can be said now is homicide occurred, whether it was murder cannot be determined.

I'd also like your position on the Weather Underground and whether they deserved the death penalty as well.

Depends. Were they white nationalist? Or lefty anti protesters?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

They are just everyday Americans who want to MAGA through genocide and ethnic cleansing.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

If only the president had the courage to label this what it is.

Radical islami... oops

Radical White Nationalist Terrorism.

Reminds me what a comedian said (can't remember which one):

"Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all racists are Trump supporters"

Play to the base, baby!

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Wow. What a crock of shit.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Where do I send my money?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

atty general would have jurisdiction if he broke a federal civil rights law. you're right, assaulting someone because they believe differently than you isn't necessarily a federal civil rights crime. but if you assaulted folks because of their "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person" then you fall afoul of the statute.

the problem with white supremacists, nazis, neonazis, et al, is that they tend to rope in some pretty large swathes of undesirables, such as jews and catholics. therein may lie the problem. as well as if black people were in the group and it can be shown that it was a particular hatred of black people that motivated him (unless, as i think you suggested above, he didn't intentionally run into these folks, rather he was texting or apply his eyebrow liner or whatever).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Luscan is pretty racist. I guess he supported Trump.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

---

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

---

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

Federal civil rights violations are not punishable by the death penalty.

I'll ask you the same questions if you're going down that road as the nonsense posted that started this tack: What are your thoughts on the folks tossing bricks off the roof of a garage at people going to the Trump rally in Chicago and your position on the Weather Underground?

Well if that isn't definitive proof of motive, I don't know what is.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

You just going to ignore my questions or you don't want to admit your intellectual dishonesty?

lefty protesters

I think you're on to something here...

We should get Mike Pence on this...

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No. That's just civil disobedience.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

He's too consumed with his RAGE!!!

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

It's only "civil disobedience" if the ruling class considers it disobedience. These lefty protests are part of ruling class. They aren't fighting the man, they are the man.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

'Twas sarcasm.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Much of the federal civil rights criminal legislation requires action "under the color of law." Not the case here.

But it's also my understanding that there is federal hate crime legislation covering actions based on particular protected categories, including the perception of those protected categories. There very well may not be jurisdiction here, but I see no problem with an investigation into that. I'm a little baffled by those here who so adamantly conclude that this wasn't a hate crime when we have so little information about the guy's motives. Seems a bit premature.

My position is that assuming this was a premeditated action there is no way he could have perceived or known that the victims were a protected class.

ETA also the victims were not a protected class

Well, I'm not insisting that it isn't a hate crime. In fact, I'm asking people to hold off from insisting one way or the other until we have the details. That's how our system works. You don't assume it's a hate crime until the crime is investigated and you determine that the requirements are met. You certainly don't start from an assumption that it IS a hate crime, and then wait to find out the guy's motives.

That said, my understanding of federal hate crimes laws are that they require the crime to have been committed against someone because of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. None of those would seem to apply here, and VA hate crimes seem to require race, religion, or national origin, so I'm fuzzy on why people are leaping to the conclusion that it qualifies for hate crimes prosecution, other than that people just figure if you hate someone, then it must be a hate crime.

Personally, I fucking hate the concept of hate crimes legislation. Somehow, if this guy ran over pedestrians because he's a psycho, it's better than if he did it because he didn't like their skin color. Ridiculous.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Your civil rights protect you from the govt. Unless the driver was acting on behalf of the govt somehow, I'm not sure a civil rights case would be pertinent.


No, then you might run afoul of federal hate crimes statutes. Not the same thing. And nobody is alleging that this man drove into pedestrians for any of those reasons.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

My position is that assuming this was a premeditated action there is no way he could have perceived or known that the victims were a protected class.

"No way?" I could see how someone who is a white supremacist, bigot, whatever, assuming that any counter-protester must be n***** or n*****-lover (and yes, as typing that, the Louis CK routine went through my mind), which in his or her mind might be the same thing. The perception of being in a protected class is just a protected as actually being in the class. If someone equates white sympathizers as the same as a minority, then is it protected? Or if someone views a white sympathizer is either on a level field as the minority, or perhaps even worse, is that not protected?

Yup this is where people are immediating leaping to while still ignorant of the staute.

That would be twisting the meaning to essentially make it useless.

I don't think there's any question that if a black person is attacked because he's black, then that could be a hate crime.

Likewise, I don't think there's any question that if a white person were attacked because the attacker perceived him as black, either because of complexion, hair, dress, speech, etc., that would also be a hate crime.

But what about the white sympathizer, who is attacked because in the mind of the attacker, he's a traitor to his race? Isn't that attack still on account of the victim's race?

How so?

No he hasn't. As I said on page 1, he was booked. He will not be charged until his arraignment on Monday.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

My understanding (based on the reports and the information we currently know), is that this guy is a resident of Ohio, who drove to Virginia, where he engaged in the act. It would not take a huge leap to tie in a claim of crossing state lines to commit a crime, which would add a layer of potential federal jurisdiction. While I do not like the feds getting involved in purely state matters, this is a situation where federal jurisdiction, should they choose to engage, would be rational. Again, assuming the facts reported thus far are accurate.

Add that the federal hate crimes act and you certainly have a rational basis for federal prosecution.

But, keep in mind, if they do this, the federal prosecutor has to prove intent (i.e., that he specifically targeted individuals based on race). That adds a layer of proof that may not be worth pursuing. VA does not seem hesitant to throw the book at this guy, so go after him federally? That said, you can always charge him with federal crimes and state crimes, which I bet they will do. What typically happens is the state waits to see what sentence he gets in federal court, then decides whether to pursue the state charges.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I could not agree more.

The reason why a person committed a crime is always taken into consideration at the sentencing stage. I see no reason for specific laws that seem to "place value" on the victim more in some cases than others.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

With regard to crossing State lines, would they have to demonstrate that he deliberately crossed State lines with the intent of committing this crime, and then deliberately did so? Otherwise, any time anyone committed a crime in a State other than the one they primarily reside, it could be a Federal crime.

Seems like it's more likely this guy crossed State lines to participate in the protest, and the running over of people was spur of the moment.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yes. You would have to show he used federal means to commit the crime. With the Boston Bombers, for example, they engaged in interstate commerce in buying the parts for the bomb. In kidnapping cases, they kidnap someone, then drive across state lines with the victim, or then cross state lines with the intent to kidnap and commit the crime. Every once in a while, my dad (retired FBI agent) would get involved in a local robbery that happened in IL, MN, or MI if the perps then fled across state lines with the stolen goods (although in a lot of those cases, the FBI just picked them up and turned them back over the local cops where the crime took place).

So, this requires another level of proof for the federal prosecutor. Of course, it they charge a federal crime, they don't have to worry about that, but then it add the layer of specific intent for a hate crime.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Ok, but at this point there doesn't seem to be any evidence that that's what happened.


Another interesting hypothetical, but again, not pertinent, I don't think, at this point.


In my mind, no. It's an attack based on hatred of the person's belief. He didn't attack the victim, in that scenario, because he hates the victim's race. He attacked the victim because he believes something different than the attacker.

That said, again, not pertinent at this point. So far, we only know that someone, alleged to be the man in custody, ran his car through a group of pedestrians, hit a few of them and another car, then back away and fled the scene, and that his actions resulted in a number of injuries and one fatality. We don't know if he plowed through them intentionally. If he did, we don't know if he did it because of their skin color, or their beliefs, or because he was just a psycho who wanted to kill some people. We don't know if he did it because he was scared, or if he lost control of his vehicle, or if he thought they'd get out of his way, or if he saw Islamic terrorists use the tactic and decided to mimic, or etc, etc. Hence my point, which is that it's too early to be demanding federal hate crimes prosecution and the death penalty, as the previous poster did.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The victims are most certainly of protected classes, probably at least 3, as are you. One does not need to be a minority to be of a protected class. You know that right?

Good stuff here. 1 dead and 5 in critical condition and the LR is hand-wringing over possible over-charging of the Nazi boy and making, what looks to me, like aspersions on the physical appearance of the dead woman? Or did I read that wrong?

True, but just because every person is a member of a protected class (or several) that doesn't mean a crime committed against them is a crime against a protected class. If a black person is mugged for his money, it isn't automatically a violation of the protected class status of race.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Agreed, it was the stupidity of his comment that the victim was not of a protected class. It's a pervasive thought that only minoritites are protected and the majority are not. I'm not sure if it's intentional or borne of ignorance. The fact that windy is a lawyer, I think, I'd lean towards option 1.

No, he isn't.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

My mistake. I always felt he put himself out there like he was an in house corporate lawyer type... then maybe it's category 2.

I don't know any lawyers who drink Zima ...

Back to the topic - assuming this is true, it will bolster support for charging this as a hate crime.

The 20-year-old Fields had been photographed hours earlier carrying the emblem of Vanguard America, one of the hate groups that organized the "take America back" campaign in protest of the removal of a Confederate statue. The group on Sunday denied any association with the suspect, even as a separate hate group that organized Saturday's rally pledged on social media to organize future events that would be "bigger than Charlottesville."

https://www.yahoo.com/...alist-062152087.html

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Also, expect an insanity defense:

James Alex Fields Jr. also confided that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger and had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, Derek Weimer said in an interview with The Associated Press.

https://www.yahoo.com/...alist-062152087.html

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

FIFY

I made no comments about the dead woman. Simply that rob is wanting this guy burned at the stake alive without even having a trial.

He just posted a picture of a car hitting people. Like that is some kind of proof of murder.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

And the beginnings of a defense here:

"James Alex Fields Jr. also confided that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger and had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, Derek Weimer said in an interview with The Associated Press."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

what do you think stacy koon got convicted of? the cop who shot walter scott in south carolina? cops get convicted of federal civil rights violations routinely.


them too. as you say, it is the right of white supremacists to assemble peaceably. but hate speech is tricky, at least as it has been interpreted by the courts.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

But there is a panoply of victims it's not like he targeted one protected class => not a hate crime

I clarified in a subsequent post. I don't identify as a lawyer.

You answered your own question. Stacey (with an "e") Koon was a police officer acting under government authority. When an on duty police officer violates a person's civil rights, it is a federal civil rights violation.



EDIT TO ADD: It is a violation of 42 USC 1983.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The fuck I did

No it isn't. It's protected speech. If you find it offensive tough, that's literally a cornerstone of our form of government. What is tricky about it?

And yet you hold board meetings at a Panera?

you bring up an obvious point. every case i brought up falls under the "color of authority" provision. but i seem to remember there were 3 or 4 paragraphs or article or provisions to the law - the byrd and who was the guy in wyoming? that law - and one of the provisions or instances was the "color of authority" provision. the others were not specific to that.

so, i could easily see why the feds would come in whenever police were involved, because there's a special urgency when its authority in a discrete location violating civil rights, i.e., you might expect local authority to get beneficial treatment locally (as what happened in the koon case). there's more reason to expect the locals to prosecute a civil rights violator who is not in authority.

but aren't the laws equally applicable? that is, regardless of whether i'm a policeman or not, can't federal civil rights laws be violated by anyone?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

We held the last one at Cocina Real and had some great mojitos.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Aren't clear spirits for dieting women? Did the Capri leggings sap your testosterone to Illinois levels?

my understanding is that hate speech that "leads to violence" or that could or might lead to violence is considered fair game for federal prosecution. i think if you google this you'll find that this is the case. how often is it brought? how successfully? don't know.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Umm, yeah. Like I said, "acting on behalf of the govt. There's no allegation that the driver in this case (Charleston) was acting on behalf of the govt in any way.



them too. as you say, it is the right of white supremacists to assemble peaceably. but hate speech is tricky, at least as it has been interpreted by the courts.[/quote]
No, I don't think it is. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled and affirmed that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Inciting violence is not necessarily hate speech and the bar for that type is pretty high and IIRC has to be contemporaneous to the action

Yes and no. No, the same statute that applies to police officers does not apply to "civilians" who are not acting under the color or authority of the government. But, yes, there are other federal laws that provide protection.

So, 42 USC 1983 only applies to those who act under color or authority of the government. This primarily applies to police officers, but could apply to any government official or anyone acting under government authority.

But, other federal laws, like 18 USC 249 apply to "civilians." This is the federal hate crime law that gives the feds authority over certain crimes that would otherwise be purely under state law.

FWIW, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I believe federal jurisdiction is warranted in this case. If I were emperor, I would charge him locally on Monday (which is going to happen), then turn him over the feds for indictment. I would let the feds prosecute, then send him back to the state and let VA prosecute. Then, I would run the sentences concurrently. That may happen here.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Cocina Real makes them with dark rum (if you haven't tried it, I suggest you do). You wouldn't like they place. No Zima.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Everyone agrees with The First Amendment. Except for when they don't.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Not according to their website

You are correct. You are also correct that it is tricky, but the tricky part is determining whether it is "hate speech."

Hate speech is not protected, regardless of what our little buddy down in the murder capital of the U.S. seems to believe. Defining hate speech is difficult. But, it is like porn - you know it when you see (hear) it.

Here is a good discussion by the American Bar Association: https://www.americanbar.org/...ion/debate_hate.html

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Only those who don't understand the First Amendment seem to take issue with it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Um you sure there buddy? I seem to remember the ACLU winning that for the KKK.

Positive. Did you bother to read the article? Or did you just have another Zima?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

That is simply not true.

The far right has it's share of racists.

But I would say a larger percentage of those who are left leaning are racist, in that "polite racism" sort of way, not the "get the fuck out of my country/white is right" sort of way.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Anyone who thinks that people of certain skin colors need the help of white people in order to succeed are racists.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Um did you? Hate speech is protected according to the article. Burning a cross was legal speech (the actual act was criminal). The let's get whitie case was an aggregating factor and incited violence. I'm confused where you're getting hate speech is not protected.

From the Facebook of that white nationalist sub-human monster that murdered Heather D. Heyer. Such a beautiful soul taken away by a white racist domestic terrorist pile of shit.

And folk keep asking is it proper for him to be charged with a hate crime and given the death penalty... Hell some comments on here sound like sympathy for his pasty doughy punk-ass.

When he gets the needle, the world is gonna be a better place.

---

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

You really just don't understand the criminal justice system in this country, do you?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

No, isn't. The question is whether it rises to the level of hate speech under the law.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

SCOTUS test for hate speech and case citation.

I'm going to have to start charging you for these education lessons.

Not all hateful speech is unprotected hate speech. As Dan correctly pointed out to you, speech that could reasonably be expected to elicit a volatile reaction is unprotected hate speech.

If a Klan group sets up in a public park and chants "white power," it is likely protected speech. If they enter a black church to do it, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a neo-Nazi places a Hitler sticker on his truck, it is likely protected speech. If he confronts a Jewish person on the street telling him Hitler should have finished the task, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a group sets up a rally saying god hates f_gs, it is likely protected speech. If a member of that group confronts a gay man and provokes him by saying, god hates you, f_ggot, it is unprotected hate speech.

This is pretty much what Dan said and to which you objected. Given your difficultly understanding this topic, I would say Dan was correct when he said it was a bit tricky.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I don't really think it's that tricky. Hate speech is obviously not specifically protected. However, SCOTUS has said multiple times that there is no exception to the First Amendment for hate speech, i.e. it is as protected as any other speech.

What's not protected is speech that is directed to incite violence or imminent illegal action and that is likely to indeed produce such violence or illegal action. That's not specific to hate speech. You could easily have speech that is directed to incite violence or illegal action that doesn't qualify as "hate speech."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Hate speech statutes have been upheld wherein hate speech is specifically defined. Hateful speech is not unprotected hate speech as recognized by the courts. The issue is defining hate speech and distinguishing it from speech that is hateful.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Got it. Does that definition of "hate speech" include the component related to inciting violence or illegal action? If so, then I don't think that legal definition would match up with the common definition/understanding of hate speech.

For example, I'm pretty sure that most people here would consider "I hate all white people. They're evil and the world would be better off if white people didn't exist. White people are the devil.," to be hate speech. However, if the legal definition of "hate speech" includes intent to incite violence, then it certainly wouldn't qualify. That would lead to a significant disconnect between the common public discourse about hate speech and the legal definition.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think some of this would fall under disorderly conduct laws such as inciting a riot and/or disturbing the peace. Being that the speech is protected but the result of the speech is not. The first amendment only protects you from government retaliation not individual retaliation.

Ok, now I see what you are saying. Yes, that is true. There is that component.


Yep, I'm tracking now. Correct. There is a difference between "hateful speech" and legally unprotected hate speech. But, common usage of the term "hate speech" would not make that distinction.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

isn't incitement a crime in the US independent of hate crime?

ie., if you said "we should all go burn down that movie theatre now," that's (to my eyes at least) clearly incitement but clearly not a hate crime.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Yes. Depending on the jurisdiction, it can range from disorderly conduct to incitement of a riot as a specific charge. Hate crimes requiring a showing that the act was committed based on the protected class of the victim.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Exactly. I'm betting there was a shitload of what most people would consider "hate speech" at these demonstrations that would not necessarily fall into the category of speech that could be prosecuted.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Two of the three of your examples of unprotected hate speech would fall under either incitement of an unlawful act or fighting words. The third would be protected

what he said

No.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Is there a legal definition of hate speech? I am unaware of it. Generally as far as I can tell your definition would fall under the doctrines I mentioned above.

Does it matter if the volatile reaction is legal, or where the speech occurs?

I immediately think back to the "pastor" in Florida who made a spectacle of burning the Koran on YouTube, IIRC. And, predictably, there was a violent reaction. The response was unreasonable--as is all violence outside of the law and not waged in defense of life or property--but the response was, unfortunately, reasonably expected. By that definition, how is burning a holy book not unprotected hate speech?

Trespassing and disorderly conduct, or something thereabouts, seem to me the appropriate charge in the first example. It's hard to imagine the latter two examples being unprotected speech in the absence of the threat or commission of actual physical violence.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

It depends on the totality of the circumstances and one of the main factors is location. If the pastor burned a Koran in his own church or on his own private property, it is most likely protected. If he did it at a lawful rally in a public place - most likely protected. If he does it in the public parking area in front of a mosque, well, now we are getting into a grey area. If he walks up to a couple Muslims on the street and lights it "in their face," now he is crossing a line.

Keep in mind, none of this justifies or legalizes a violent response. There could be criminal charges against him and against the person who kicked his ass.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yes... explain how I'm wrong

I agree. We judge peoples actions. Their motives only matter in determining if something was an accident, or if it was a premeditated crime.

How sure can anyone be of what is protected and what is not? If the Supreme Court ruled a cross burning in your African American neighbor's yard is protected speech, It hard to believe it is as clear as you say. That is a situation with a risk of escalated violence yet they say it was protected.

Unless your African American neighbor planted the cross and set it on fire, SCOTUS has not deemed that protected.

It's like porn - you know it when you see it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

That was one of the examples in the link you posted. https://www.americanbar.org/...ion/debate_hate.html
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), involved the juvenile court proceeding of a white 14-year-old who burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn., neighborhood. Burning a cross is a very hateful thing to do: it is one of the symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has spread hatred and harm throughout this country. The burning cross clearly demonstrated to this family that at least this youth did not welcome them in the neighborhood. The family brought charges, and the boy was prosecuted under a Minnesota criminal law that made it illegal to place, on public or private property, a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse “anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional because it violated the youth’s First Amendment free speech rights.

so his act may have been illegal under some other law, but the law outlawing cross burning was unconstitutional and violated his First Amendment rights.

That's not exactly what SCOTUS said. SCOTUS struck down a local ordinance because it was overbroad. It pertained to displays that may cause "resentment" in others, which means it was not limited to "fighting words" that would reasonably be expect to incite a violent response. So, the case does not say the act was protected speech. It wasn't. The offenders were charged and convicted for their conduct. But, SCOTUS struck down the charge for violation of the ordinance b/c it was overbroad.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The fucking article YOU posted said it was.

No, it really doesn't. I just explained why. Go read the case.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Grumble grumble fine

Sometimes "free speech" has consequences.


White nationalists who participated in the deadly rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend are being identified on social media, and at least one man has lost his job as a result.
Top Dog, a hot-dog restaurant in Berkeley, California, said it fired Cole White on Saturday after the man was named by a Twitter account devoted to outing rally participants.
"Effective Saturday 12th August, Cole White no longer works at Top Dog," read a sign posted outside the restaurant on Sunday. "The actions of those in Charlottesville are not supported by Top Dog. We believe in individual freedom and voluntary association for everyone."

https://www.yahoo.com/...o-him-141546570.html

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'm following a doxing situation on FB presently. A guy from nearby my old residence has been identified in a photo standing next to the accused killer. A quick view of his FB page left little doubt as to his identity and sympathies. He listed his current employer on that page, which is now being reviewed on FB and Google with poor ratings and "If you want a Nazi building your stuff, this is the place" type comments.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about how this plays out, even presuming they have identified the right guy and the business doesn't take a hit.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

The problem with calling everyone who disagrees with The Left "nazis" is that when, as is apparently the case here, actual nazis are identified it somewhat weakens the impact.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I've heard Adam Carolla opine on several occasions that there's no better time to be a racist than when everybody's racist.

He ain't wrong.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

So it's okay to act like a Nazi (or support those actions) when going after a "presumed" Nazis?

This is great stuff.

Yes. See, when you're enemy is history's worst villain then everything is justified. This works both ways, btw.

The dude driving that car may have thought the people he was running over were violent Antifa idiots so therefore he was justified.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Nazis also ate bread and soup. Eating bread and soup doesn't make one Nazi-like. But this isn't inherently Nazi behavior, outing someone for their abhorrent beliefs and behavior.

Like I said, I'm not entirely comfortable, but then, isn't it better for them, and us, to know their views and actions, than not, as employers, neighbors, and associates?

I strenuously oppose punishing employers, or anyone for that matter, for things beyond their knowledge or control. Giving a company a bad review for that reason crosses that line, but then, it's a relatively innocuous way to immediately draw the employer's attention to it, which, as an employer, is something I'd like to know about.

It certainly is playing with fire, though, and fire has a way of spreading.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Sure. Which group of people (you don't like) will be next?

The rally was in a public place. He appeared in public, in support of a neo-Nazi organization. His Facebook profile is public, and includes racist imagery and sentiments. It also named his employer. All public information.

You're presumably upset that people are directing his public profile and behavior toward his employer?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Next for what, exactly?

I went to a candlelight vigil for the dead/injured people. Not normally my type of thing, but my wife wanted to go, so I went with her.

I was surprised. I thought it would be mostly BLM and antifa types. And there were some of those.

But I'd estimate that Jewish people were the largest single group. I'm basing that off a large number of Star of David symbols on candles, etc. Nothing promotes common cause more than effing Nazis.

Most people do not hold ideas where the total eradication of a sub set of humans is a desireable outcome

He is entitled to his views. His employer is entitled to think that if an employee is calling people "ni$$$s, spi$s or ki$es" on line that there may be a risk sending them to jobs or even simply coming to work

I'm simply pointing out that you are using (or supporting) Nazi tactics to go after private citizens you think are Nazi.

What is "Nazi" about directing people to public websites and profiles identifying someone who publically attended a rally?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Or Russians. Don't forget those effing Russians hacked our election.

You're simply pointing out something incorrectly and for no useful purpose.

All of it is public information made available by the Nazi sympathizer. Please show me how this is akin to Nazi behavior.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

It does seem innocent to just be looking around to see where someone lives, works, and plays all because they were photographed at a rally. Yep.

See post # 154

I thought it was well established that Wendy couldn't pass the bar. :)

Whether it's a great use of one's time to do that looking around is one thing. You still haven't explained how it';s a Nazi thing to do.

This guy apparently was perfectly happy for the world to know about his beliefs. He posted them on a public FB profile where any and everyone can see it. He attended a widely publicized rally to yell and scream about his beliefs, which was certain to be photographed, video'd, covered by news, etc.

It's not Nazi to call attention to the beliefs of someone who publicly broadcasts their beliefs.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

That's ridiculous. We punish motives all the time, for reasons that go beyond whether something was an accident or premeditated.

For example, how should the abused spouse who deliberately and with premeditation hires a hitman to kill her husband in order to stop the abuse be punished as opposed to the same actions but motivated entirely by greed?

This isn't the only example. The list could go on. People are punished differently every day, and a primary factor in determining the level of punishment is the motivation underlying the crime.

That escalated quickly.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I think you know very well that accommodating the concept of self defense is substantially different from the concept at play with hate crimes.

Hate crimes legislation, as far as I can tell, typically considers hate thought motivation as an aggravating circumstance. And as far as I can tell, it's pretty much the only aggravating or mitigating circumstance that relies entirely on an assessment of what the accused was thinking when he committed the crime. Typically, aggravating factors are things like taking a leadership role in the crime, being a repeat offender, or attacking a particularly vulnerable victim. Typically, mitigating factors are pretty much the opposite. Minor role in the crime, the victim had culpability as well, lack of prior record, etc.

It seems like only "hate crimes" factors are specifically about the emotional reason behind the crime.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I have but all you want is an argument. Not me.

No, you really haven't, but I don't give enough of a shit about what you think to try to harass you into making a cogent point.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

In this thread?

There's nothing in post #154 explaining how "outing" (they're not hiding) Nazis on social media is anything akin to Naziism.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Not to mention, post 154 seems to have been written by Duffy.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I did pass the bar thank you I just don't practice. FYI you're autocorrect is fucking up my name

Ummmj. No.

And this is not a defense of hate crime legislation. That's a separate issue.

Great post. Offered no content, and claimed that hate crimes legislation is a separate issue from what we've been discussing, which was,...oh yeah, hate crimes legislation.

Well done.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What, exactly, is a white moose? And what do they want?

http://www.bbc.com/...ed-on-film-in-sweden

Dude was at a permitted public rally, transparently promoting racism. It was a marketing event. I don't think there can be any presumption of privacy there. It's not like secret filming of a private Klan meeting.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from speech.

If you want to openly promote ISIS in America, you better get ready to get criticized, and maybe lose your job.

If you want to openly promote Nazism, you better get ready to get criticized, and maybe lose your job.

It takes a special sense of self-entitlement to think you're entitled march around at a public really promoting Nazism and then return to your daily life with no consequence.

What would the founding fathers say about your lack of faith in in free speech that you promote retaliation about what someone says, or does not say, and has the gall to come to a public rally to hear what someone else says.

It seems you and others have already decided what someone thinks just because they are at standing at a rally. You don't really know what he believes in.

Where do you see evidence our founding fathers outing those of other opinions and retaliating against them, their employers, neighbors etc like we see far too often today. No they allowed all opinions to be said and did not retaliate against other views They championed free speech.

Would the civil rights movement have worked if everyone who rallied for it were fired from their jobs because of their beliefs?

If you believe in freedom of speech you should permit others their views without retaliation. Anything else is not really freedom of speech.

The current state of freedom of speech is a much watered down version. Shame on those who go after people who have other beliefs.

Read the case and then Black ... burning a cross is constitutional free speech. Effectively "hate speech" which you have yet to give a test for is protected. The ancillary aspects intimidation, trespass, having a fire in public are not.

No.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The Founding Fathers were very much about the public sphere being the crucible of ideas. Not a one-sided show and tell. You put in idea into the public sphere, and you and the idea become open to counter-speech. And people are free to judge their relationship to you on the basis of your speech. And your employment status.


Please, the rally was about as unambiguous as rallies get, and in a public space. No one accidentally stumbles into a white supremacist rally. You'll have a really hard time convincing me of that.


Yes, free speech on all sides. There were vicious debates and controversies, particularly over Federalism, land ownership, and slavery. Debate over Federalism escalated famously to the point of duel (Burr-Hamilton). That's right - a Founding Father freaking killed another Founding Father over politics. And we like to think we're so special today with our "never been worse politics."



Fired, like Septima Clark? I think many were happy to not be beaten, arrested, or killed! But, yes, many were fired. Sometimes legally. Voicing unpopular political dissent is unpopular. Many in the Civil Rights movement accepted the risk of that unpopularity willingly. Those risks included legal measures such as counter-speech, social ostracization, firing, etc. And ranging all the way to illegal - beating and murder. The Charlotte Nazis have considerably less risk to worry about. Much less likelihood of beatings and murder. But they don't get special coddling on all the legal responses.


I permit them their speech. I do not permit them sanctuary from my own speech, or any legal retaliation.


Your conception of "free speech" is a nostalgia for some saccharine, fantasy, everyone-holding-hands version of "free speech" that never existed anywhere except maybe in a 60's commune out in New Mexico. I can't believe you're telling me just to ignore fucking Nazi marches because "they're just people exercising their free speech." Screw that. They get their speech and their march. That's it. They were emboldened by perceived political backing and popularity to stop hiding and come out in the open. Good, we get to see who they are . But I'm going to ram their sick, twisted ideology down their throats every legal way I can. Same with the ISIS shit. Sorry if that's not consistent with your Disney fairytale version of U.S. history.

I accidentally walked in to the WTO protests in Chicago, OWS Chicago, an abortion rally (don't remember if for or against), a teachers union march multiple times, immigration march and a BLM march multiple times. I'm not saying it's likely but it could happen. Also Chicago seems to have some upset people after reading that list.

Yes. Give me the test for hate speech then.

Well, except that these guys also seem to have blatantly racist material on their FB pages as well, and openly talk about how they have these beliefs. But sure, other than that, we have no idea what they believe.

Freedom of speech is protection from the govt. It's not protection from the disdain of your fellow man.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The moral and historical confusion revealed in this post is just astonishing.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Yup. I remember reading about how polite the patriots were to the loyalists...

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Thank you. I was reading patf post and thinking dude is clueless if he doesn't realize that the FF dueled over their ideas and speech.

Once upon a time it meant more. While disdain is reasonable, we have went far from disdain when people hunt down and make national pariahs of people they do not agree with. They picket their employers, boycott their products, apply pressure until the person is fired. If it were only disdain then i'd say we were doing well.

You think the duels were over freedom of speech or to squelch free discussion? No, it was a long feud with slanderous comments for an extended period. I don't think you can use this as a shining example off the FF stifling free speech. It was two petty men fighting over pride.

The picketers and boycotters and pressure appliers are simply exercising THEIR right to free speech that you seem to be so fervently defending. The white nationalists are free to spout their bullshit and others are free to speak up against them.

If I were employed by a white nationalist and were featured front and center in the paper while leading a Planned Parenthood Rally through down town I would not be surprised if my employer decided that I was, "not an appropriate fit" for their corporation....

---

----------------------------
Jason
None of the secrets of success will work unless you do.

boycotter and "pressure appliers" are providing any useful discussion of ideas. They are trying to limit free discussion of ideas. I guess you don't really think open discussion of ideas works when you resort to retaliatory actions.

I have interviewed White Supremacists, KKK members and neo-Nazis in the past. The so called WS group in Charlottesville did not look like any of those groups and appeared to be Antifada people pretending to be WS (polo shirts; no visible fascist/prison/WS tattoos; bicycle helmets). The fact that the one single person in the WS group that has been identified came from Berkeley, CA, which is associated with the left much more than the right of the political spectrum.

wow.

Pick up at 6:15 if you don't care about infrastructure.

---

Suffer Well.

So are you implying these were all lefties pretending to be White Supremacist because one was from Berkeley? Incidentally, a whole lot more than one has been identified.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

why don't you think businesses can fire people for being racists? if i ran a restaurant, i would not want to hire someone who could potentially damage a good chunk of my business?

Man, you're talking a lot about your supposed belief in free speech for someone who just a few months ago was complaining about their pastor exercising their right to free speech in a manner that sounded far less offensive -- and a better use of free speech -- than the bigots whose right to free speech you're defending. That's puzzling.