You're viewing a single thread.
So the cops didn't arrest people for their free speech & people are upset?
Free speech, as long as they like the free speech.
Watch what a bunch of black people or university students start a protest
Then again, you already know this...
Black people & students can organize & exercise their rights to free speech. Do you think it is forbidden? The issue with most university protest is that campuses are private property and so if the school says they can't protest on their property, then they can be trespassed. That is very different. I'm not pretending that there aren't injustices. In fact, there have been plenty of lawsuits where someone has sued for having their civil rights violated and won. Multiple times a year you hear about how cities have had to pay out hundreds of thousands, sometimes several million, because of it.
The solution to injustices though isn't more injustice. You think the solution to cops shooting someone who hasn't committed a crime, is to shoot more people that haven't committed a crime?
People are upset at the contrast to other protests. Had they been protesting for minority rights, the cops would fucking find a reason to arrest them. And probably beat a few asses along the way.
So they are upset that the cops arrested people in this instance for breaking the law? If people were attacking them & damaging their property because they didn't like their free speech, then that is a crime.
No, they're upset that the cops themselves flagrantly violate the law to beat and arrest protesters without sufficient cause when they're leftwing protests, but when it's a bunch of literal Nazis, everything is handled politely, and suddenly, protester rights are a priority again.
For example, take kettling. The cops make the protesters move in a given direction. Again. Again. Until they've pushed the protesters into a dead end or another wall or two of cops. Typically, they keep moving in, tightening the space until there's no more. When the crowd has no choice to push back, they call it assaulting an officer, say it's turning violent and label it an illegal protest, and arrest everyone.
Of course, this is illegal as shit, which is why most protesters arrested this way get the charges dropped. The judge knows there's no case, and neither judge nor cop wants the tactics more widely publicized. But they've already broken up the protest. They've given these citizens arrest records. They've won. That protest, at least, is over, and they'll just do it again if another starts.
And that's not even counting the violence. Look at some of the footage from the 2020 George Floyd protests. If you don't agree with the protests, put aside your differences and just look at what was done to protesters and what they were doing when it was done to them. Some of those protesters that got kettled didn't just get arrested, some were attacked with less lethal options like rubber bullets. For all their reduced lethality, a couple dozen American citizens still died at the hands of their own police force. More were maimed for life with injuries including lost eyes.
I personally saw dozens and dozens of videos of police ruthlessly abusing those protesters. Things like a man laying face down on the ground when the cop standing over him shot him in the back point black with a bean bag round. An old man shoved over and cracking his head on the ground, only for the cop to just step over him and leave him there. That shit doesn't happen at Nazi protests. The cops play nice and remember how to do their fucking job for the Nazis, but try to get the cops to stop hurting people unnecessarily and see what they do.
So what are you arguing for exactly then. That since the cops have committed injustices, that they should commit more? When someone gets arrested & charges get dropped due to insufficient evidence, then that is the perfect opportunity for someone to file a lawsuit for violating their civil rights. I'm not pretending that injustices don't happen, but the solution in my eyes isn't for more injustice.
Do you believe that future injustice won't happen? No? So then yes, I desire consistent injustice, because it's explainable. With inconsistent injustice, we need to search for motive and judge that.
Are you not bothered by the inconsistency? Do you not wonder why the inconsistency exists? Does THAT not bother you? Nazis in the police force bothers me a lot. That's what we are seeing. That's why people are mad.
The problem is not the actions in the individual situation. Obviously. The problem is the actions within context. Context is what around 50% of this country sucks at understanding. Context is important. Context is the difference between self defense and murder charges. That's how important it is.
Free hate speech != free speech
That’s exactly what it means. Popular speech doesn’t need to be protected. The ACLU has won a number of cases defending the free speech rights of the KKK and other rightwing groups.
Now that doesn’t mean you won’t lose your job or your community won’t beat your ass.
What crime did they commit? You are way outside your element here, but try your best to come up with something citing some prominent case law in the US to support your claims.
Isn't hate speech illegal?
Unfortunately, no.
In all the (other) first world countries it is. Especially those that are around Germany.
Where Nazis are in power, it doesn't exist. And Nazis think their laws are the world's law. And also they still pretend to miss the point even when others very clearly state it to their face.
Causing a disturbance? Public Nuisance? Disorderly Conduct? Transporting 30+ people in the back of an unsecured U-Haul? Take your pick, the cops certainly do.
Transporting 30+ people in the back of an unsecured U-Haul
LOL.. what statute is this, never heard of U-Haul crime before.
Causing a disturbance? Public Nuisance? Disorderly Conduct?
I don't think you even know what some of these are cause if you did then you wouldn't suggest them, but you're suggesting anytime people organize together to exercise their free speech that they should be arrested because people get upset that they have gathered. So I guess no more pride festivals cause they'd all get locked up. No more pro-choice marches cause they'd get locked up. The list goes on and on. Is that really what you want?
Do you not think that has been tried before and that courts have ruled on it? Maybe go read some case law & try to make an intelligent argument.
Hey you're right, there isn't a statute specifically about U-Haul crime! Of course, most people would recognize that the laws concerning the transportation of people without seats or seatbelts applies to ALL vehicles and only a completely disingenuous fuckwit would focus on the U-Haul part.
Another thing that only a disingenuous fuckwit would do is try to equate literal, flag-waving Nazis specifically trying to incite hatred and fear towards minorities with all other public gatherings. And pretty much all the examples you gave have a history of police breaking them up for precisely the reasons I listed, but the cops didn't lift a finger here.
I don't type this for you, because you already know you're full of shit. I type this for anyone who reads the slop you drooled out onto the keyboard, pretending like you have a point instead of just being a worthless waste of oxygen.
Of course, most people would recognize that the laws concerning the transportation of people without seats or seatbelts applies to ALL vehicles and only a completely disingenuous fuckwit would focus on the U-Haul part.
Not wearing a seatbelt in the back of a truck isn't an arrestable offense, nor against the law in almost half the states. What if they were seated & wearing safety harnesses? You can always call the Lincoln Heights police & ask for clarification or to lodge a complaint if their safety is a big priority to you.
Another thing that only a disingenuous fuckwit would do is try to equate literal, flag-waving Nazis specifically trying to incite hatred and fear towards minorities with all other public gatherings.
I didn't, but what I said were things that upsets people. Abortion upsets people where pro-lifers believe it is murder. Supporting Palestine upsets people where pro-Israelis believe it is supporting terrorists. Just because something doesn't upset you, doesn't mean it doesn't upset other people. Clearly you get upset very easily. Are you not able to regulate your emotions or did you forget to take your meds?
And pretty much all the examples you gave have a history of police breaking them up for precisely the reasons I listed, but the cops didn’t lift a finger here
You didn't cite any cases, so if you want to make a point then link to some legal cases and I'll cross-check them with similar cases.
I don’t type this for you, because you already know you’re full of shit.
You failed to provide any evidence or cite a single case. All you do is scream like your parents took away your Xbox. You typed this to try to prove to yourself that you're way more intelligent than all the attorneys, legal scholars, amicus curiae's, judges, etc. that have already litigated matters like this, which I argue are way more beneficial to causes you might actually care about if you'd listen & stop screeching. Were you never taught any coping mechanisms or do you not know how to do legal research? Nothing gets done by screaming.
Almost everything you've said indicates to me you're a fascist. You want to censor people that non-violently expresses opinions you don't like, you don't care about the rule of law and you don't see other humans that offend you as being anything more than "a worthless waste of oxygen."
So many words just to say "I'm a fascist piece of shit"
Maybe you should stop being one then
Always found the free speech defense weak. Why isn't calling for the torture and killing of lesser races at least as bad as shouting "fire" in a theater?
I mean they can be arrested if they explicitly call for that. If you want to expand the range of speech considered hate speech so it includes Nazi demonstrations then, well... Would you trust Trump with that kind of power?
How can you claim to support naziism without claiming support for the Holocaust? And about Trump, he will do what he wants regardless.
How can you claim to support naziism without claiming support for the Holocaust?
Obviously you can't, but allowing the judicial system to make this kind of conclusion on behalf of the people is not a good idea. You can get a judge that will say anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism and therefore hate speech. This is not a slippery slope argument; Germany for example literally does this.
And about Trump, he will do what he wants regardless.
I mean yes and no. He's Trump, but he's still bound by the law and can't just arrest everyone he doesn't like. Therefore giving him a way to arrest innocent people for "hate speech" is not a good idea. And again we're not talking hypotheticals in the far future; the political will to do this sort of thing is there and only bound by Americans' first amendment rights.
Any law can be taken too far. And Germany has an especially difficult historic situation. But just because a law might be abused (and frankly many US laws are, you don't have to look abroad) that doesn't mean we don't make laws. The line could easily be drawn at "not calling for genocide" I think that's fairly safe.
And yeah many anti-terror laws (hot since the early 2000s) are perfect examples of this. So this abuse is already happening today and has been for some time. Anyone remember George Bush's "free speech zones"? If the powers that be want to abuse the law, they don't need this pretext. So I don't see how banning Nazis speech will make things worse.
The line could easily be drawn at "not calling for genocide" I think that's fairly safe.
The problem is that you don't get to draw the line; you only get to erase the previous line and mark the general vicinity where the next line might be.
So I don't see how banning Nazis speech will make things worse.
There's always room for things to get worse. Hate speech laws in particular tend to be pretty draconian so they've got a lot more room for things to go wrong than anti-terror laws (which, as you said, are already abused).
Free speech has been litigated many times in the US. What is the most recent prominent court decision you'd like to discuss on the subject? Also, I didn't hear any of them calling for torturing & killing people in the video. Did you?
What do you call waving Swastika flags and shouting "Heil Hitler" over there?
Again, what crime has been committed? Did you know that prominent Jewish attorneys have also defended Nazis' rights to free speech? Can you guess why that might be?
I guess these are the good kind of Nazi who want to love and care for the untermensch.
I'm not making a legal argument in a court but calling for the overthrow of government and civil society sounds like treason to me.
So you're unwilling to do any actual work or put any effort into understanding the current law and how you'd go about changing it if that is what you think should happen? How does complaining about cops acting within the law help you in this case?
I don't think I said anything about any cops. But yeah I'm not a lawyer and I have a full time job. I don't know how I'd go about changing free speech laws in America. But if free speech laws protect people calling for genocide then maybe that law should be looked at.
Without the context and from across the street, it would look as if the protestor was one of the cops and they picked him up after a sucessful mission.
The initial phone footage from the bridge made people speculate cops were on their side.