Liberal idiocy and Straight Pride.

@maxdancona,

Regarding your specific made-up examples, I do have an opinion.

1. It is my opinion, that protestors chanting "gays shouldn't be allowed to live" is NOT protected speech.

2. It is also my opinion, that protestors chanting "If we catch any of you going into these racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck" is NOT protected speech.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I concede the point, the Supreme Court did not rule on either of the examples I used.

Thank you. I appreciate you conceding to that point.

Quote:

I was implying that these examples are clearly permisible under the Brandenburg Test. One point for you....

I disagree with your assertion that these two specific examples are permissible.

Quote:

Other than scoring a rhetorical goal... I don't get what your point is. What are you arguing?

What you call arguing was merely a disagreement. I have articulated my disagreement with your assertions that these two examples are permissible.

It is my opinion that both of these two examples are NOT permissible.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

The second one is not a made-up example. It is an exact quote from one of the parties in NAACP v. Claiborne.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Claiborne_Hardware_Co.

You are correct that I took some license with the first example ... But in Brandenburg v. State of Ohio, a Klansman said "Bury the n***ers" and "We have to do our part". This was considered to be protected free speech under the first amendment. "Bury the n***ers" is suggesting killing African Americans, but it is protected speech because it is not an imminent call to action.

I am afraid the courts disagree with your opinion about what is protected.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Do you think the Straight Pride parade has anything that is not protected free speech?

I can't see anything.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

It is my opinion, that as long as this parade or any other parade is peaceful and is in no way inciting violence or inciting law breaking,
then it is protected free speech.

On the other hand, if this parade or any other parade is in any way inciting violence or inciting law breaking,
then that is NOT protected free speech.

This is my interpretation.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The second one is not a made-up example. It is an exact quote from one of the parties in NAACP v. Claiborne.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Claiborne_Hardware_Co.

1. I just clicked on this new link you provided.

2. I stand corrected. One of the examples you used is an actual real example.

3. I now concede that the one example is real.

4. I wonder if there has been any other cases since that particular ruling that might have superceded that ruling.

5. I don't know if there has been any new rulings or court cases since that ruling.

0 Replies

For someone who claims to be a "liberal," you spend an awful lot of time attacking those who don't support Trump.

So throwing urine at the police is wrong, but it's perfectly acceptable for racist police to shoot unarmed people of colour. And there's nothing wrong with the straight priders stirring up hatred and inciting violence against LGBT+ people.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Good Morning. My point has been that, with your introoductory remarks and ppresentation of "facts", I dont believe weve been given em all.
Youve quoted everything but Brandeis an Stevens statements about (in 2 different generation), how theyv believe that the stictures on the 1st Amendment have yet to be fully tested or that such a test even yet exists.(despite Barndenburg "test") The concept "fighting words" where the speech used is done to incite direct violence responses or
"clear and present danger" also have survived the definitions of when can free speech be abridged.
I think the keys that help us understand what is
abridgeable" is when free speech
calls to action go from mere advocacy v actual incitement was th actual discussions and the quotes youd presented about "extreme advocacy".
I dont know, and Im guessing that neither do you , have any FACTS other than news . News a we know i quite often skewed to its targeted audiences.
My hackles go up when someones opening Thread presentations start with an implied "This was merely a peaceful demonstration by a buncha yahoos".
Now having said that. Is agree if the direct incitement could NOT be found, these actors were being really dumb in their responses.
I assume the audience was made up of LGBT community and not "Liberals" or was that your sobriquet for any group.(Ive noted your us of "Liberal" as commensurate with "Evil" is being brought into your daily use as we march closer to the 2020 election.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I would say that

- "racist police shooting people of color" is wrong.
- throwing urine at people is wrong.
- physically attacking police officers is wrong.

These are all wrong. I don't get your point.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You are separating the two issues... which is the correct thing to do. There are two questions here.

1) Does the government have the ability to shut down the Straight Pride marchers without violating their first amendment rights.

2) Was the response of the counter-protesters warranted or rational.

It seems like you are agreeing with me (at least in part) on the second point (which was the main point in the thread). But let's address the first amendment issue.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

1) The right of racists to hold public marches has been tested in the Supreme Court. Consider the Supreme Court case "National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie" where the right of Nazis to march, and display swastikas, was found to be protected speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

2. Fighting words has also been tested.

- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire A Jehovah's Witness is allowed to yell publically that organized religion is a "racket".

- Street v. New York Flag burning (although deeply offensive to many people) is protected free speech.

- R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul found that the government can't restrict speech just because it "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"

- Snyder v. Phelps Found that the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that protests military funerals with signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" is protected under the first amendment.

I don't believe the legal principles are at all in question.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The point is you only make a big song and dance about throwing urine at police officers, and have to pressed to condemn racist police.

You still don't think inciting violence against minorities is wrong though. Hitler would have loved you.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

My response to Izzy is on the ideological feud thread.

https://able2know.org/topic/529563-2#post-6894117

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I'm sick of that thread. I've posted it down, it's just another one of your vanity projects.

Your post said nothing whatsoever about inciting violence being wrong even though it was a point I raised.

Instead of responding to that you said something about violence towards the police.

Therefore, as you did not address it it's logical to assume you don't have a problem with it.

You've still not said specifically why you think Holocaust Denial is acceptable. You give a lot of vague, woolly and essentially meaningless waffle about free speech. You are unable to deal with specifics, and you rarely give straight answer.

Why don't you go back, have a look at your posts and count up the number of times you attack 'liberals' compared to how many times you've attacked right wing groups.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Another off-topic post. I will respond on the feud thread.

https://able2know.org/topic/529563-2#post-6894128

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

It's not off topic at all. In this respect you're very much like living lava in that respect in that you expect everyone else to live in your ideological bubble. We're only allowed to address the issue on your terms, and no I'm not going to your other thread.

I told you, I've shut it down.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

My snarky and insightful response to Izzy is on the feud thtead

https://able2know.org/topic/529563-2#post-6894149

0 Replies

You may not wish to address the points raised, and stick your head in the sand but this was a far right rally masquerading as something else.

There was a thing called WW2 and the Holocaust, you might want to look it up, but it wasn't very nice, and it's not something we should try to repeat.

Quote:

If you’ve been paying attention to the news lately, you’d know that Sahady, one of the organizers of Boston’s proposed Straight Pride Parade, is a veteran, Trump supporter and white supremacist. None of this is rumor or up for debate. He has organized right-wing protests and pro-gun rallies. His social media presence is rife with alt-right dog whistles. There is absolutely nothing groundbreaking about him or his beliefs. The problem arises in his methods.

Fascist rallies garner negative attention. They are overt, bristling with the potential for violence. At the recent KKK march in Dayton, nine white supremacists were overpowered by 600 counter protestors. Bigots cannot count on a silent majority to look the other way anymore, so how do they continue to dig in their roots?

Easy. Construct a parade in direct contrast to Pride, tapping into the homophobic leanings of those not quite convinced to join the alt-right. After all, if LGBTQ people get their day, why shouldn’t straight people? Claim straight people as an “oppressed majority” facing discrimination from the city of Boston. Claim that denying straight people their right to parade in the street is unconstitutional. Gather the wavering masses under a single umbrella and disseminate the us-and-them mentality from there. When fascism can’t take hold through overt means, move it underground. Create a system of cycling dog whistles. Enmesh bullied kids into a toxic echo chamber of propaganda and build a new generation of fascists. Easy.

https://www.jewishboston.com/the-covert-anti-semitism-of-straight-pride/<br />

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Starre decicis doesnt mn that USSC always follow omeones ide of precedent. Otherwise the Roe v Wade issue wouldnt be creeping up on

the USSC docket. Same thing with the Firearms act of 1935.

The few cases youve mentiond have ,no doubt, provided an issue of response by the court, but unless weve got an eternally locked "Borg" court, examples provide the very bases from which the various decisions are made and the examples go several ways.
You do understand that. e dont (or shouldnt) provide personal decisions and intimate that they are fact before the case is even tried.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I guess that is true about any Supreme Court decision. I am not sure what the point is. The First Amendment is general seen as a pillar of American democracy. I suppose it is possible you could get a Supreme Court to weaken it.

0 Replies

Liberal idiocy and Straight Pride.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know