Neither is Driving a car into a crowd of people because you're scared that if you use a gun it will help justify banning them.
Where did i say it was? why do you people always result to strawman arguement instead of addressing the actual argument? is it because you can't?
The key difference? Every member of the KKK and every single solitary Neo-Nazi and white supremacist in the county is a disgusting disgraceful piece of **** that deserves to have their ass beaten, their dicks cut off, and force fed to each other. We all know this. We've literally fought two of the most bloody, and well-justified wars in human history specifically because we know that. So given that the president they are madly in love with is ripping children away from their parents and keeping them in cages for a "crime" that's actually beneficial to the United States, I'm not going to lose any sleep over someone punching Richard Spencer in his stupid ****ing face.
It doesn't matter what you think of them or i think of them. We have a constitution that gives them the right to spew their garbage just as much as it gives you the right to spew yours.
What it doesn't give you the right to do is assault people and destroy property.
I've lost count of how many Trump supporters I've heard say that. Few may follow through, but many talks about it like it's just fine.
You don't understand the difference in running people over with your car and exercising a right of travel.
Actually, no you don't. Pedestrians have the right away, and there is nothing about cars in the bill of rights.
Pedestrians only have the right of way in a cross walk. Protesters blocking the street do not have a right of way and
are actually committing a crime.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-protesters-legally-allowed-to-block-busy-streets-and-highways
Tell that to the men who died at Pearl Harbor. Tell that to a Jew of an African American.
They might not like it and they may even hate it, but it still does not qualify as incitement.
Please see the brandenburg test for incitement.
“Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Because the rally was not obviously intended to incite specific acts of violence, and because it was not likely to do so, government restriction of Brandenburg’s speech was unconstitutional.
That ignores the possibility that a swastika in and of itself could be and should be considered harassment. Do you seriously think Richard Spencer, Ann Coulter, or Yanni what's is nuts go to Berkley because they want to engage in an intellectual debate? They are Trolls. Their goal is to incite a riot. They want one. They choose their words and actions carefully as to stay just under the legal definition of incitement, but that is abso****inglutely their goal, and you know it.
Your opinion of what they are doing is meaningless.
Actually it isn't and nothing in what they said would convey that they are attempting to incite a riot.
again your opinion of what they think they are doing is meaningless when you look at the actual law.
you might not like what they say you can even protest what they say, but we have laws and those laws govern
what they are doing is illegal or not, and so far it is not illegal whether you like it or not.
again what you think their goal is doesn't matter. They are allowed by our constitution to do it.
just as you are allowed under our constitution to protest it.
what you and they are not allowed to do is assault someone or destroy property.
anyone that does should be arrested and charged accordingly.
the only time it is ok is in self defense.
