Race issues: Privileges, Relations, Racism and other related stuff

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

The only thing that isn't protected is libel, slander (which are notoriously hard to prove for good reason), and direct threats of violence. You can insult me all you want and I won't give a shit, because once your insults are exhausted, you've got nothing

No, these are not the only things unprotected under the first amendment. Please stop making stuff up. Taken from the wiki article:

Advocating the use of force aimed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action or encouraging someone to commit suicide, false statements of fact [including but not limited to libel and slander], obscenity, child pornography, fighting words and offensive speech [including but not limited to direct threats of violence], speech owned by others and commercial speech.

[Blueknight78]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

No, these are not the only things unprotected under the first amendment. Please stop making stuff up. Taken from the wiki article:

Advocating the use of force aimed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action or encouraging someone to commit suicide, false statements of fact [including but not limited to libel and slander], obscenity, child pornography, fighting words and offensive speech [including but not limited to direct threats of violence], speech owned by others and commercial speech.

well them, all they need now is also add the: speechs supporting homophobia, xenophobia, gender supremacy, racism, religion oppression and nazis, if they do that them that peoples will disappear forever, because USA become they paradise now since most of the world try to get riddle of them and only usa they can "free leave" spreading they hates and crap things.

[Kotohono]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Expecting to get attacked because of your own word and where you spout them is not violence, and the act of violence would be what is inflicted upon you. This has been the tactic of the Westboro Church for a decade or so. Say or post something that could provoke a response in a place that could provoke a response. Sue if violence happens. Collect monies from lawsuit. Because their First Amendment Rights are protected regardless of how stupid or dangerous their words are.

And that is the issue; Free speech being unlimited to accommodate intolerance is a problem though, most of the world seems to get that; and it's known as the paradox of tolerance because it threatens tolerance in a civil society and thus restricting hateful speech is necessary to protect tolerance. This tweet's image explains it perfectly:

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Expecting to get attacked because of your own word and where you spout them is not violence, and the act of violence would be what is inflicted upon you. This has been the tactic of the Westboro Church for a decade or so. Say or post something that could provoke a response in a place that could provoke a response. Sue if violence happens. Collect monies from lawsuit. Because their First Amendment Rights are protected regardless of how stupid or dangerous their words are.

Originally Posted by Kotohono

And that is the issue; Free speech being unlimited to accommodate intolerance is a problem though, most of the world seems to get that; and it's known as the paradox of tolerance because it threatens tolerance in a civil society and thus restricting hateful speech is necessary to protect tolerance. This tweet's image explains it perfectly:

It's not that simple. Smart hate groups like the WBC have been able to peddle their hate by following technicalities such as minimum distance from those they want to harass as long as "they can't be seen" from then event such as a funeral. And say, modifying these things like distance would not be handled by the Constitution.

Example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1748454.html

That is, 1st amendment rights aren't as absolute as one would think. Much like how the you can't buy a Anti-Tank gun for the 2nd amendment. (Although you can buy a flamethrower)

And yes, there have been smart pricks as the aforementioned WBC but fortunately the majority of our hate peddlers aren't as smart.

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

Harassment is also covered, but that's generally a one-on-one affair as opposed to the KKK marching through a black neighborhood which the ACLU defended so long as they remained peaceful. And don't set the precedent for non-self defensive violence since the action obscures the motive. This doesn't mean non-violent retaliatory action isn't allowed; don't crowd in with a neo-Nazi rally publicly and future employers won't happen to catch someone pulling your pants down. Nor am I engaging in false equivalence, though do please pinpoint where you seem to imply I do so I can clarify for feature perusals (change "most" to "most, but not all" and all that)

I'm not open-minded to the point my brain would fall out, though we may both know someone who finds that sentiment rather arrogant

My point was rather to point out that it's not as airtight as some would assume, and none of the implications directed at you, but rather at people that would rather take advantage of these things to spread hate.

The 1st amendment protects us from the State from interfering in freedom of speech. So I was going through the social implications because no actions take place in a vacuum.

Of course, laws regarding violence still apply mind you. Though do remember, we do give special protections to various groups, though that do not apply here.

And there are certainly non-violent ways to deal with it. People have recently lost their jobs for being involved, and it is only reasonable to think that businesses would not want to employ people like that. People have started to stop doing businesses with people involved with this shit. So in a sense, allowing them to assemble has other benefits too....

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Advocating the use of force aimed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action or encouraging someone to commit suicide, false statements of fact [including but not limited to libel and slander], obscenity, child pornography, fighting words and offensive speech [including but not limited to direct threats of violence], speech owned by others and commercial speech.

Obscenity has always been an interesting topic to myself. It's defined as

whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest

though I suppose it refers mainly to works.

EDIT:
http://wset.com/news/local/go-home-n...met-with-anger

lol, gotta back up your own kind, even if they murder.

[Jaden]

The "Weimar America" comparisons are apt, if a bit hyperbolic and sometimes mistaken.

In Germany, the nazis arose as reactionaries to an impending communist revolution, and the two sides' militias fought openly in the streets. Centrist liberals in the government twiddled their thumbs before eventually condemning the hard left and giving a free pass to the nazis.

They may not have had a chance to keep control with the state failing economically and all, but a better move would've been to equally condemn and ridicule the radicals on both sides, and equally apply law and order in their rallies. Even if at a certain juncture one side is clearly the more egregious one... because that could easily change if they are empowered and given a free pass.

[Archon_Wing]

Well, when we have far-left Stalinists wanting to put up statues of Pol Pot, calling for the death of White male bourgeoise, give me a call.

[MCAL]

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...00269383581697

Very fine people. I can assure you.

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/900161420641415170

Incredible...

[Archon_Wing]

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/...17-gxyamq.html

/shrugs Co-organizer seems like a decent dude.

[MCAL]

https://twitter.com/VA_GOP/status/900443931539890176 (Tweet in question in screenshots below. Plus a bonus!)

We're sorry our racism was too obvious. We'll be sure to make it look less obvious tomorrow.

[MCAL]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/2...p2jwMAfr?amp=1

Not a good look for the police of Charlottesville...

[Archon_Wing]

http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/...n-11961550.php

Ah, nothing here then. Guess they'll retreat to the nazicave

[Toukairin]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/2...p2jwMAfr?amp=1

Not a good look for the police of Charlottesville...

Who the hell are those clueless and incompetent idiots? Then they will ask why people dare to go as far as to shout "screw the police".

[Archon_Wing]

http://m.sfgate.com/local/article/Co...h-12016792.php

Well SF seemed to handle it well. I guess I can be proud of my city for once. Y'all didn't fuck up just once.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c6ccc8dc68bb

Here's how not to do it.

http://www.theonion.com/article/anti...eo-nazi--56783

And this is the Onion, but it might as well be real.

[Toukairin]

Until the day KKK and Neo-Nazis get the same label of being terrorists at nationwide level, Homeland Security can go fuck themselves.

[Archon_Wing]

So we pardon a racist scumbag Sheriff that has clearly violated laws and brought harm to people, but we are going to deport people for their parents' crimes? Because we all know when we give the State broad powers to hunt for people never, ever causes collateral damage. All because Fuck Obama?

This country doesn't cater to racists at all.

Can't wait for the black suited men to come break my car's window because they think an illegal's child is hiding inside.

[Anh_Minh]

Can't they already confiscate it through civil forfeiture anyway? (And that one's not on Trump. It's older.)

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Can't they already confiscate it through civil forfeiture anyway? (And that one's not on Trump. It's older.)

Yea, but you know what they say about giving them more excuses. I guess Obama played pretend a bit better.

[Anh_Minh]

It's not on Obama either. (Except in the "he didn't stop it" sense, I guess.)

[Archon_Wing]

It's been around for a very long time yes. But there have been many cases where abuse of it has gotten more frequent, especially since the War on Drugs, which certainly has some degree of legitimacy has also resulted in much collateral damage.

[Anh_Minh]

Exactly. This recent round of abuses started in the 80s.