Punching Nazis

[Commodore]

I'm not real big on the waving of "but free speech" as if it were a magic wand, especially when the application is particularly dubious. If I don't like what someone has to say and I cut their tongue out with a pocketknife I haven't "infringed their right to free speech." I'm not the government. I don't represent the government. There is absolutely nothing about the statement "the congress shall pass no law infringing upon the right to free speech" that has the slightest thing to do with me.

People who wave the "but free speech" wand are the ones that always seem to me to not only "not be big on" but to actually not even understand the concept.

Oh I understand the concept just fine. And it does have everything to do with you as an individual because you are likely to vote for politicians who share your views on what speech should be allowed and what speech shouldn't. That means people like you are a direct threat to the Constitutional rights of everyone, including yourself. That's why it's important to get people like you to understand that everyone has the right to express their views without fear of reprisals, even Nazis.

 

[cardgame]

The only direct threat to Constitutional rights comes from Nazis.

 

[Commodore]

The only direct threat to Constitutional rights comes from Nazis.

That's not even remotely true. Anyone, regardless of their ideology or political leanings, who thinks it is okay to silence opposing voices and opinions is a threat to our Constitutional rights. Ever heard the saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it"? Yeah, that's what free speech is all about.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh I understand the concept just fine. And it does have everything to do with you as an individual because you are likely to vote for politicians who share your views on what speech should be allowed and what speech shouldn't. That means people like you are a direct threat to the Constitutional rights of everyone, including yourself. That's why it's important to get people like you to understand that everyone has the right to express their views without fear of reprisals, even Nazis.

"Without fear of reprisals" and "unimpeded by the government" are such not equal things that they shouldn't even be in the same sentence...but you made me do it.

Just because I'm willing to cut someone's tongue out with a pocketknife doesn't mean that I advocate for releasing the congress from their constitutional obligation to not infringe on freedom of speech. I think the much bigger threat comes from people muddying the waters by waving "but free speech" over my pocketknife as if it had been elected to congress.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's not even remotely true. Anyone, regardless of their ideology or political leanings, who thinks it is okay to silence opposing voices and opinions is a threat to our Constitutional rights.

Bull. I think it is fine to silence an asshat. I've silenced plenty of them without any effect on their constitutional rights at all. Because the constitution says not word one about me not being allowed to silence them. I am not congress, and I do not silence them by passing laws.

 

[Commodore]

"Without fear of reprisals" and "unimpeded by the government" are such not equal things that they shouldn't even be in the same sentence...but you made me do it.

Just because I'm willing to cut someone's tongue out with a pocketknife doesn't mean that I advocate for releasing the congress from their constitutional obligation to not infringe on freedom of speech. I think the much bigger threat comes from people muddying the waters by waving "but free speech" over my pocketknife as if it had been elected to congress.

Problem with you using a pocketknife is that you, as an individual, have no right to take anyone else's Constitutional rights away through the use of violence or any other type of coercion. So in that sense, yes you do have an obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of those you oppose. You have the right to disagree with them, but you do not have the right to silence them. That goes back to the saying "My right to swing my arms ends where your face begins."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Problem with you using a pocketknife is that you, as an individual, have no right to take anyone else's Constitutional rights away through the use of violence or any other type of coercion. So in that sense, yes you do have an obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of those you oppose. You have the right to disagree with them, but you do not have the right to silence them. That goes back to the saying "My right to swing my arms ends where your face begins."

Your right to free speech ends when you get within earshot of someone who doesn't want to hear it...as long as they don't invoke congress or laws to shut you up.

 

[Commodore]

Your right to free speech ends when you get within earshot of someone who doesn't want to hear it...as long as they don't invoke congress or laws to shut you up.

Not if you are in a public space. If you are in a public space, then all you can do is ask me to shut up, but you cannot take any action to force me to shut up. To do so would be a violation of my rights and would subject you to criminal prosecution.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not if you are in a public space. If you are in a public space, then all you can do is ask me to shut up, but you cannot take any action to force me to shut up. To do so would be a violation of my rights and would subject you to criminal prosecution.

And that prosecution would have absolutely nothing to do with any constitutional restriction on the congress and the sort of laws they pass. It would be due to me possibly violating criminal codes regarding assault. Again, this is what I mean by the muddying of the waters by waving this wand. I am under no obligation to hear you, help you be heard, or even allow you to be heard. If I stand next to you blowing an airhorn in your ear until you can be reasonably accused of resorting to violence to silence me I'll beat the case, because your continued blathering about your "rights" after you were asked to shut up or move on is the instigating factor...in our mutual assault cases.

Ultimately whether either of us ends up in jail is a function of the quality of our attorneys, and neither of our cases is going to be heard on a basis of constitutional law and free speech. There's going to be some dispute over whether either or neither of us availed ourselves of the available opportunity to deescalate by leaving the scene, questioning of the always unreliable eye witnesses as to who "started it" even though that isn't really technically significant, and some amount of 'he who gets hurt worst gets more sympathy from a jury...but if you insist that your lawyer make the core of your defense "I kept on being a nuisance because congress can't stop me" you're going to wind up in jail...where there is always someone with nothing to lose who is willing to silence a chatterbox.

 

[Mise]

There's a practical side to this discussion. I would have never known who Richard Spencer was had there not been a big celebration that he was twice punched. Spencer is a fringy cringy media figure whose entire power comes from attention. The more you and I devote attention to him, the bigger sway he has over others.

There are an untold number of hateful nuts trying to get their message out. Most of them serve to remind us that being a good person with good beliefs is not a given, nor should be a surprise. But most of them are irrelevant and forgotten and thus have no platform for their heinous ways. They are media, talkers, hoping to gain validation and recognition. Why would we give them what they want? Wouldn't it be better to let them suffer until either they petrify as ornery old men or leave their niche behind for the warmer values of the mainstream?

To be clear Hygro I agree with the general argument about not giving them attention, but I think you overstate your case. At this point, Alt-Right Nazis have literally taken over the White House. Sure, Spencer is a crazy fringe guy, but he was still being interviewed on TV. It's not like they lack a platform.

 

[aelf]

Many moderates probably think you can convince the concentration camp guards to let prisoners go with words or peaceful resistance.

 

[Commodore]

It would be due to me possibly violating criminal codes regarding assault

And where do you think those criminal codes get their legitimacy from? In the US it comes from the fact that our criminal codes help protect the Constitutional rights of the people, at least in theory.

Many moderates probably think you can convince the concentration camp guards to let prisoners go with words or peaceful resistance.

Yeah, better to just throw them in concentration camps of your own, amirite?

 

[aelf]

Yeah, better to just throw them in concentration camps of your own, amirite?

Nah, maybe nuke them from orbit and light their anuses on fire.

 

[W|M]

And where do you think those criminal codes get their legitimacy from?

State monopoly on violence

 

[Lexicus]

you, as an individual, have no right to take anyone else's Constitutional rights away through the use of violence or any other type of coercion.

You don't really understand how Constitutional rights work, do you?

 

[KmDubya]

You don't really understand how Constitutional rights work, do you?

I'm a little rusty on my Constitution, which amendment was it that gave you the right to commit violence on people you don't want to use their First Amendment Right of Free Speech?

Again I am thankful for Trump's victory so that the progressive left could come out as the violent thugs that they are. Making America Great Again, one violent progressive at a time

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And yet another demonstrates they have no clue about how constitutional rights work.

There is no amendment to the constitution that "gives you the right" to do anything. The ONLY thing the bill of rights did is impose limits on the government. As in "The congress shall make no law that..." does xxxxxx.

The basis of laws against criminal assault has NOTHING to do with protecting Commodore's "right to free speech." The basis of laws against criminal assault is that as a nation we have agreed that we don't have room for people running around assaulting each other, and since the constitution does NOT impose any restriction like "The congress shall make no law infringing on the rights of people to sock each other in the face" the congress in representing the people have made laws against socking people in the face.

As West India Man succinctly put it, we have enacted an ever expanding web of laws that creates and maintains a state monopoly on violence. While the weak minded might contend that this is a noble pursuit dedicated to the protection of the fictional "rights granted by the constitution" the reality is that such monopolies invariably lead to totalitarian states. Once a sufficient monopoly on violence is established the fetters imposed by a constitution tend to fall away.

 

[Akka]

They're not explicitly pro-Nazi, they're implicitly pro-Nazi. Either way, it's wrong to be against punching Nazis

You know you sound like a fanatic, right ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You know you sound like a fanatic, right ?

You do realize that "fanatic" is one third of the name of this forum, right?

 

[Akka]

You do realize that "fanatic" is one third of the name of this forum, right?

Good catch
But I'd hope it's restricted to the "civ" part.