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.

Seems to me a reasonable policy in the era of social media is to hire with the understanding that if they link themselves to their employer via social media, and their public behavior reflects poorly on that person's associations, that termination should be an expected consequence. Not that it's necessary, but it might protect businesses from the unwarranted negative press these situations inevitably spawn.

The idiot in Ladson, SC, who lost his job was an unabashed racist on his Facebook page, where he also named his employer. I mean, what did he expect to happen with regard to that relationship?

---

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