In Support of Eric Clanton

[Ryika]

So, I was thinking about making this post since I first saw Eric Clanton's message to the world a week ago or so, but I finally decided that I need to overcome my fear and take a stand, because this injustice cannot be accepted.

Eric Clanton is a person who was involved with the counter protests against a so called "Free Speech" Rally on April 15, and because of his involvement in the counter protest, he was targeted by an Internet Mob that identified him, and then a harassment campaign that ultimately led to his arrest was started against him by the right-wing troll Milo Yiannopolis and the desiderables of /pol/. In his own words:

Suddenly a hit piece by Milo Yiannopolis caused the targeting to go viral. Several old social media photos were posted, online accounts hacked, addresses published, hundreds of calls to my employers, and countless threats of physical violence made against me, my coworkers, friends and many others. This harassment campaign is where the accusations against me originated.

source

This is of course in itself already disgusting, but the behavior of the Berkeley police is even worse. Instead of doing a proper investigation against the people who doxxed him, all they did was to join the targeted harassment campain against Eric by - his own words are perfect here, so I will quote him again - "reading far right forum posts and studying unverified youtube videos", before arresting him. And I have to agree. Just because there are images and video evidence of an identifiable Eric Clanton using a heavy bike lock to hit people on the head and risk cracking their skulls does not mean that the charges of assault with a deadly weapon hold any merit. After all, that information was put together by white supremacists and far right individuals, can we really trust them to give an accurate picture of the situation? I am sure that during most of the protest, Eric Clanton did not hit people on the head with a deadly weapon, so these heavily edited videos that only show him hitting four people at different points of the protest very much distort the whole picture.

In summary, Eric Clanton is a victim of the people who do not understand that to uphold democracy sometimes you have to be a violent thug.

To be clear: I don't know if that website is legit or not, but if it is, then it is such a powerful statement against the current state of the USA where you can be arrested just because you hit a few people with a bike lock while fighting the good fight, and the far right police of Berkeley.

Spoiler :

Yes, this is a satirical post in case that wasn't already obvious.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh why did you have to spoil it with the... spoiler... okay that answers that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And I have to agree. Just because there are images and video evidence of an identifiable Eric Clanton using a heavy bike lock to hit people on the head and risk cracking their skulls does not mean that the charges of assault with a deadly weapon hold any merit.

I wasn't familiar with this story, so I wasn't sure what this was about until I got to this point, haha.

 

[Perfection]

Wait a tick, this thread isn't about Eric Clapton

 

[MilesGregarius]

Wait a tick, this thread isn't about Eric Clapton

I thought it had something to do with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday.

 

[inthesomeday]

Know what's funny? As I was reading the post I noticed you were coming to the defense of someone who was doxxed in an admirably unbiased fashion, so I was going to post here with my honest opinion-- equally unbiased-- that it was perfectly okay he was doxxed because he was willing to take action against the right and should've been equally willing to accept the responsibilities that entails.

Then it became clear this was a satirical post and I realized you weren't being unbiased at all. Nonetheless, I'll be the bigger person and agree that he knew the risks behind his actions and took them anyway. Because he was acting politically his repercussions were political as well. I still hold true that people who are doxxed for political positions shouldn't ever be in a position where they're uncomfortable with those positions being public; otherwise they have no right to claim those positions.

 

[Ryika]

As I was reading the post I noticed you were coming to the defense of someone who was doxxed in an admirably unbiased fashion, so I was going to post here with my honest opinion-- equally unbiased-- that it was perfectly okay he was doxxed because he was willing to take action against the right and should've been equally willing to accept the responsibilities that entails.

Actually, earlier today I had written quite a long post in another forum about how this is a difficult situation for me, because unlike most people who were doxxed, he did something that directly harmed, and could have caused the death of people. That, plus the doxxing clearly had a positive effect, as that guy was pulled off the street and will no longer be able to harm other people, while the doxxing in this specific case has not harmed any innocent people.

Yet, I still came to the conclusion that I think doxxing him was wrong, simply because of the dangers that that sort of mob justice brings with it - which is the exact same stance I take towards doxxing of assumed Nazis, that sort of mob justice will always harm innocent people, because more often than not, people do a terrible job at it and are not using the power they have responsibly. I have no sympathy for him, and I do not have sympathy for anybody who runs around with a Nazi flag and then complains that somebody identified them and got them fired, ultimately you should be willing to pay the price for what you say or do in public or not say or do it in public in the first place. It's the wildfire that hits innocent people that I care about, and that includes when people overly apply the label of Nazism to anybody who attends a free-speech rally.

So I do think we're surprisingly sort of on the same side of this issue, the main difference seems to be that you're willing to accept a certain amount of collateral damage (or think it simply doesn't happen for some reason), while I am not.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yet, I still came to the conclusion that I think doxxing him was wrong, simply because of the dangers that that sort of mob justice brings with it - which is the exact same stance I take towards doxxing of assumed Nazis, that sort of mob justice will always harm innocent people, because more often than not, people do a terrible job at it and are not using the power they have responsibly.

Ultimately, how does one define "mob justice"? "Justice" carried out by government-ordained officials like police officers or judges has only one difference from justice carried out by random civilians, which is to say they have the blessing of the government. Now the importance one places on this difference is the real difference. If one trusts the government ordained moreso than the average citizen then naturally they would eschew "mob justice" as carried out by civilians and embrace "justice" carried out by the government, but I do not trust the government much further than I could throw it.

I have no sympathy for him, and I do not have sympathy for anybody who runs around with a Nazi flag and then complains that somebody identified them and got them fired, ultimately you should be willing to pay the price for what you say or do in public or not say or do it in public in the first place. It's the wildfire that hits innocent people that I care about, and that includes when people overly apply the label of Nazism to anybody who attends a free-speech rally.

I agree that innocent people don't deserve to be targeted for things they didn't do, but I disagree that attending a free speech rally is exempt from "doing something". Usually doing something political is a very active and deliberate choice, and the rallies you describe are today one of the most solely politicized activities that is available to a lot of people. Engaging in this activity automatically equates to a number of things, and the everyday citizen has as much a right to pass judgement on this activity as the government. Also, calling them free speech rallies is a little bit deceptive. While I agree that a free speech rally is a good thing free speech isn't really the point of these rallies; I doubt they'd rally to support Leftist speech, and indeed many of the people who would attend these rallies have their own personal preferences of the speech they'd like to suppress.

So I do think we're surprisingly sort of on the same side of this issue, the main difference seems to be that you're willing to accept a certain amount of collateral damage (or think it simply doesn't happen for some reason), while I am not.

Collateral damage against innocents is never something I would ever accept, but I disagree that someone who chooses to engage in political activity can any longer be considered an innocent-- on either side of the spectrum. Nazis march. Antifa fights the Nazis. This is the pattern of how these things happen and I agree that nether side is an innocent in the vain of thinking of them purely as uninvolved civilians. I happen to disagree with Donald Trump in that I don't consider Antifa's actions as violence; however I think Antifa are just as responsible for the actions as the Nazis. I do however condone what Antifa does.

 

[Lexicus]

I will be following this case with great interest!

 

[Ryika]

Ultimately, how does one define "mob justice"? "Justice" carried out by government-ordained officials like police officers or judges has only one difference from justice carried out by random civilians, which is to say they have the blessing of the government. Now the importance one places on this difference is the real difference. If one trusts the government ordained moreso than the average citizen then naturally they would eschew "mob justice" as carried out by civilians and embrace "justice" carried out by the government, but I do not trust the government much further than I could throw it.

At least in theory, agents of the government are held responsible for their actions, while people on the internet do not suffer any consequences ever. Of course that doesn't always work out that way, and America seems to be in a pretty bad state when it comes to that, but that's a problem in the system that needs to be fixed.

I agree that innocent people don't deserve to be targeted for things they didn't do, but I disagree that attending a free speech rally is exempt from "doing something". Usually doing something political is a very active and deliberate choice, and the rallies you describe are today one of the most solely politicized activities that is available to a lot of people. Engaging in this activity automatically equates to a number of things, and the everyday citizen has as much a right to pass judgement on this activity as the government. Also, calling them free speech rallies is a little bit deceptive. While I agree that a free speech rally is a good thing free speech isn't really the point of these rallies; I doubt they'd rally to support Leftist speech, and indeed many of the people who would attend these rallies have their own personal preferences of the speech they'd like to suppress.

Many Free Speech rallies of the recent past actually had left-wing voices be cheered at after saying things like "We might not agree on everything, but it's good that we agree that both sides should be heard.", many of them had voices from all parts of the political spectrum aside from maybe the far left give speeches and be applauded. That's exactly the problem with mod justice, people fundamentally disagree on what these rallies are for example. I've watched a lot of footage of these rallies, and while they're certainly right-leaning (as advocacy for free speech seems to be in America at the moment), they're no "Nazi marches". That one in Charlottesville was. Yet people get fired for attending those rallies because people were doxxed and their bosses bombarded with accusations of giving a job to Nazis.

Collateral damage against innocents is never something I would ever accept, but I disagree that someone who chooses to engage in political activity can any longer be considered an innocent-- on either side of the spectrum. Nazis march. Antifa fights the Nazis. This is the pattern of how these things happen and I agree that nether side is an innocent in the vain of thinking of them purely as uninvolved civilians. I happen to disagree with Donald Trump in that I don't consider Antifa's actions as violence; however I think Antifa are just as responsible for the actions as the Nazis. I do however condone what Antifa does.

Yeah, but you're again talking in extremes here. A person at a free speech rally is just that, a person who attends a free speech rally. There are certainly Nazis at those rallies, but they neither dominate the field, nor does attending such a rally make you a Nazi.

 

[inthesomeday]

At least in theory, agents of the government are held responsible for their actions, while people on the internet do not suffer any consequences ever. Of course that doesn't always work out that way, and America seems to be in a pretty bad state when it comes to that, but that's a problem in the system that needs to be fixed.

Alternatively, the state inherently exists to condone violence by the strong against the weak and must be abolished rather than "fixed". Can't fix what ain't broken.

Many Free Speech rallies of the recent past actually had left-wing voices be cheered at after saying things like "We might not agree on everything, but it's good that we agree that both sides should be heard.", many of them had voices from all parts of the political spectrum aside from maybe the far left give speeches and be applauded. That's exactly the problem with mod justice, people fundamentally disagree on what these rallies are for example. I've watched a lot of footage of these rallies, and while they're certainly right-leaning (as advocacy for free speech seems to be in America at the moment), they're no "Nazi marches". That one in Charlottesville was. Yet people get fired for attending those rallies because people were doxxed and their bosses bombarded with accusations of giving a job to Nazis.

I support the Nazi's free speech insofar as the resulting beat down is as free to happen. Ideally this would be how freedom worked.

Yeah, but you're again talking in extremes here. A person at a free speech rally is just that, a person who attends a free speech rally. There are certainly Nazis at those rallies, but they neither dominate the field, nor does attending such a rally make you a Nazi.

If it really was a free speech rally I would agree, but even if it was I would submit that anyone there must love free speech enough to defend it, or else is critically unable to claim to love it.

 

[Ryika]

Alternatively, the state inherently exists to condone violence by the strong against the weak and must be abolished rather than "fixed". Can't fix what ain't broken.

That's demonstrably false, as the whole system is designed to be led by the many otherwise powerless people, not by the few powerful people. Which again doesn't work perfectly, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Communism as an alternative is a nice wet dream, but instead of giving you pleasure when applied, it pokes your eyes out.

But yeah, here again America is probably a really bad example of the system, as it seems to be utterly corrupted and not really doing its job. Things work much better in Central and Northern Europe.

I support the Nazi's free speech insofar as the resulting beat down is as free to happen. Ideally this would be how freedom worked.

Yeah, let the idiots battle it out and kill each other, it's good for everyone - less stupid people.

Of course we shouldn't pretend either of the groups fighting on the streets represent any sort of morality. The actual fascists have terrible views on how the world should look like, and the black bloc is quick to declare things to be fascist that are not, and instead just represent right-leaning or right-wing viewpoints, and how they treat those who they have declared fascists.. well, you know that very well.

If it really was a free speech rally I would agree, but even if it was I would submit that anyone there must love free speech enough to defend it, or else is critically unable to claim to love it.

True, but that doesn't mean that I have to be on board with the people who spread lies about people that they've bunched into a group that they are not actually in. I can condemn the way they use their free speech the same way I condemn it when white supremacists utter terrible views. Main difference is of course that the former get away with it, because in the current Zeitgeist, people are not interested in checking whether they're actually exposing Nazis, or whether they're just harming people with different, non-fascist political view points.