The dilemma of protesting white supremacists

i think everyone has the right to peacefully protest anything they wish... or not.

what i don't understand about this story is why the university agreed to allow the event to happen
if they are so vehemently against the message of hate being conveyed...

It's indeed a very tough one, as simply 'ignoring it' gives rise to the idea that these are acceptable positions and that people can attend these events and celebrate these positions with no fear of repercussion to themselves. That's seen as dangerous, as it would essentially be our society accepting these things as 'normal' ideas when they are anything but; and what more, accepting the idea that these are not in fact scurrilous, anti-American and dangerous ideas.

So, do you push back against them with direct protest - giving a clear signal to all that these ideas are not acceptable ones to promulgate in our society - or ignore them? What does ignoring them do? Many would have us believe that people like Spencer would wither or go away if they just were ignored, but I think that's totally and completely ahistorical and wrong.

The right-wing is using assholes like Spencer to weaponize free speech, and turn it against the people of this country. I really don't know what the answer to it is, but I can't imagine ignoring it is the answer.

Cycloptichorn

The right-wing is undertaking a specific strategy of attacking colleges by having their younger members hold these events. They cost tremendous amounts of money and invite violence, which they want. And, if the school blocks the event from occurring, they will sue the school for discrimination against their ideas. It's a win-win for them.

Cycloptichorn

I definitely agree about the right to and don't think reasonable people disagree, the harder question is about what is the appropriate strategy for particular cases. I think a lot of reasonable people can disagree on that.

I'm not clear on this part either, in the letter I linked they say they did not invite or sponsor the event but do not speak further about their role in it happening there and I'm now curious about who determines who is allowed to speak there.

Right now I think that this letter actually has it right. Don't provide the event more attention, but speak out separately and don't ignore that it happened. Maybe make a separate rally on a separate day that is about tolerance, but don't feed his rally.

I went to a 'counter'event to a white supremacists event locally. The white supremacists cancelled as they had only a dozen or so people coming out - and they couldn't find a space to host it - they'd originally said they were going to be on the university campus - the university said no to everyone . The counter event had a couple of thousand show up. Pretty mellow vibe.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rally-against-white-supremacy-1.4355732

I'm curious about that. Only a few dozen showed up at his last Charlottesville appearance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/us/richard-spencer-charlottesville.html?_r=0

some photography buddies went to get photos - said there were more photographers than Spencer supporters so left even before the 10 minute rally ended. similar results in DC recently. 6 white supremacists, about a hundred photogs. they ended up taking photos of each other taking photos

I too don't think they can organically generate much attention on their own and and because of this dynamic I think avoiding their events can sometimes work, doesn't have to mean ignoring them entirely but just to consider the effect on their ability to shape narratives and get attention. The very best thing that can happen to them is for antifa-rebranded anarchists to physically attack them, that plays right into their hands.

there was huge discussion of this in planning the Toronto event

everyone was asked to promise that if they saw anyone physically assaulting someone id'd as a white supremacist they would let the group leaders and police know immediately and to let the police handle it. anti-fascist is not equivalent with antifa.

I think that kind of distinction is critical for real anti-fascism, and I think these were mostly anarchists who happen to disagree with fascism and found that by rebranding themselves against a common foe they got more sympathy for the same violent behavior. I'm glad that for the most part they are rejected but wish more in the "punch a nazi" debate realized how counterproductive it is.

definitely not what I'm seeing from inside the anti-fascist protest groups locally

they/we are trying to maintain a really clear line between anti-fascist and antifa

it's one of the reasons I flip when I see people using antifa when talking about anti-fascist activity

Sure, and I'm glad the mainstream has not accepted them but they still are getting more sympathy in the balance than they did for just being anarchists. Despite us not wanting it to be so there are some who support punching Nazis but didn't support other violence and vandalism. That's precisely why we need to speak out against antifa now when a few years ago it was not an issue, because they have gained some amount of support. I'm glad it is a fringe and hope to keep it that way but even so they are a huge boon to the white supremacist trolls by playing foil to them.

Perhaps having a counter event where the main focus is displaying signs etc is enough attention to the WS that it makes them feel they've accomplished at least part of their mission.

Perhaps an event held at the same time and nearby like a blood drive or house raising? Sponsoring a campus/neighborhood/area wide Pot Luck meal with donations going to a good cause? While those guys are standing around hating, others can do something positive. No mention of the WS need be made. They are just that unimportant.

Something positive is better than fighting fire with fire. It's quenching their flames.

If they tried ignoring a couple to gage the results, it could help them decide how to proceed next.

You would probably love the Alligator Brewing Company's reaction then:

Free speech is free speech. If you deny someone Free Speech because you find it offensive, then there is no free speech. Particularly on a college campus free speech should be respected no matter who is speaking. We should let it happen.

I don't believe that you can deny anyone "access to platforms" and make any claim that there is Free Speech. They tried to censor books. They tried to censor magazines. It not only didn't work, but it kind of sucks for both sides of the issue.

As far as counter-protesting, I am all for it. Free Speech provides an equal playing field and if you are right than you should be confident. But counter-protesting should not interfere with the rights of anyone.

For any liberals who don't believe in Free Speech; Just remember that what you are doing to the Alt-Right was once done to you. It wasn't that long ago that liberals were in favor of Free Speech. Alan Ginsberg was no less subversive than Richard Spencer.

When you weaken Free Speech in society at large, you will likely regret it when the pendulum swings. And it always swings.

I'll have to disagree on that.