• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

OlNate said:
But free speech on it's own is not restricted...write a book, create a vlog. No, I don't think people should have the right to knowingly instigate a gang fight, which is why I say that public venues should not be available and private venues should not be obliged to host. If some nutter wants to hold a rally on their own property, go for it. Out of site, out of mind, no one gets hurt.
Click to expand...

Sure. After all, these things require permits. And, if I understood what happened on Saturday correctly, they violated the terms of theirs, which is why the rally was cancelled.
 
calamity said:
Not really. Basically what we have here is speech which is intended to cause violent reaction. In effect, those making said speech are expecting the State to not only protect their speech, but are asking said state to protect them from violence which may ensue from said speech. Well, it doesn't work that way. And, these Nazis know it. So, they come armed to their teeth. Which brings up the next issue...

Can I exercise my free speech rights on the street corner and call everyone walking by a mother****er who sucks turtle piss and then shoot the first guy who tries to punch me in the face? "Hey, self defense."
Click to expand...

Per your example: yes, just because someone is offended by you it doesnt give them the right to assault you.
 
Nap said:
Per your example: yes, just because someone is offended by you it doesnt give them the right to assault you.
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting test case for stand your ground. Offend the hell out of people, and when one of them comes to sock ya, shoot 'em dead. I truly am curious to see how that would play out legally.
 
calamity said:
It would be an interesting test case for stand your ground. Offend the hell out of people, and when one of them comes to sock ya, shoot 'em dead. I truly am curious to see how that would play out legally.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that has likely played out before. Saying offensive things isn't exactly a new phenomenon. The idea that you can assault someone because they offended you is pretty ridiculous. If you assault someone they have the legal right to protect themselves.
 
Nap said:
I am pretty sure that has likely played out before. Saying offensive things isn't exactly a new phenomenon. The idea that you can assault someone because they offended you is pretty ridiculous. If you assault someone they have the legal right to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

With deadly force? Hmmm...I kind of doubt that. If so, that's a law which needs changing.
 
calamity said:
With deadly force? Hmmm...I kind of doubt that. If so, that's a law which needs changing.
Click to expand...

You do realize punching someone in the face has the potential to kill or permanently disable you? Who is to say that the attacker will stop with simply one punch? You don't know the intentions of the attacker and how far they will take the assault. If you don't want to get shot, don't assault someone.
 
Nap said:
You do realize punching someone in the face has the potential to kill or permanently disable you? Who is to say that the attacker will stop with simply one punch? You don't know the intentions of the attacker and how far they will take the assault. If you don't want to get shot, don't assault someone.
Click to expand...

Well, if people won't learn to keep their mouth shut, someone just might break their jaw so that it has to be wired shut. Free speech with consequences. And, yes, I understand the person taking the swing will probably face an arrest, charges and conviction for it.
 
calamity said:
Well, if people won't learn to keep their mouth shut, someone just might break their jaw so that it has to be wired shut. Free speech with consequences. And, yes, I understand the person taking the swing will probably face an arrest, charges and conviction for it.
Click to expand...

You basically contradicted yourself, violence in response to free speech is not a reasonable consequence which is why they would go to jail.......
 
From what I saw the people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights there were not among the crowds fighting with each other. So they were not breaking any laws. The people simply exercising their 1st Amendment rights were not breaking any laws.

While I personally think open carrying an AR-15 makes you look like a douche, whenever those guys go to protests they are very careful to obey the law. They KNOW they are being watched.
 
OlNate said:
For me it boils down to this: Is the movement (KKK, BLM, AntiFA, MADD, MRA, PETA, Balding blind midgets against mullets, whatever) seeking to correct an inequality or impose an inequality. Further, there should be no grey area, and one should err on the side of free speech, if this question is difficult to answer, until it can be determined that the movement is seeking to impose an inequality.

However, the moment that a movement has been correctly determined to seek the imposing of inequality, all bets are off. This does not mean they cannot write their twisted manifestos in dark basements on old typewriters, but they should be given no permission to use public land paid for by taxes collected from the people they wish to marginalize, nor should any private venue be obliged to host them, and if they do then no security should be provided by publicly funded services (aka, the police), except to contain them and prevent them from harming others.

If this rule of thumb were applied, then the KKK, who clearly seek to impose inequality, would never have had their rally, AntiFa never would have shown up, and three people would still be alive.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has already ruled that to be unconstitutional.
 
MrWonka said:
You can't yell fire in a theater. Nazis and Klan members parading through town carrying guns is about as obviously likely to cause panic, disorder, and violence I'd say.
Click to expand...

that is silly.
 
calamity said:
People complain about how the locals and the state handled things in Charlottesville. Well, there was a reason for that. A big one.



So, one has to analyze this a bit. Free speech is a fundamental right, even crap Nazi speech. Carrying weapons is also a fundie right, granted, with some limitations. But...

What is not a right, IMO, is the right to terrorize or the right to make life a living hell for the people in a community, including law enforcement. So, where do we draw the line? And, what do we do if the speech is so egregious that physical and/or armed confrontations are almost inevitable...if not even the actual intent of said speech?
Click to expand...

If I remember my obscure NC laws correctly...... In my great state I think there is a law that disallows going armed at a protest or rally, like the ones we saw in Charlottesville, VA.

I'll have to go back and look at it... it may have been a law of the city I was in when I was a police officer.
 
calamity said:
People complain about how the locals and the state handled things in Charlottesville. Well, there was a reason for that. A big one.



So, one has to analyze this a bit. Free speech is a fundamental right, even crap Nazi speech. Carrying weapons is also a fundie right, granted, with some limitations. But...

What is not a right, IMO, is the right to terrorize or the right to make life a living hell for the people in a community, including law enforcement. So, where do we draw the line? And, what do we do if the speech is so egregious that physical and/or armed confrontations are almost inevitable...if not even the actual intent of said speech?
Click to expand...

Here is it....

G.S. 14-277.2

NC Gen Stat 14-277.2 said:
§ 14-277.2. Weapons at parades, etc., prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person participating in, affiliated with, or present as a spectator at any parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration upon any private health care facility or upon any public place owned or under the control of the State or any of its political subdivisions to willfully or intentionally possess or have immediate access to any dangerous weapon. Violation of this subsection shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor. It shall be presumed that any rifle or gun carried on a rack in a pickup truck at a holiday parade or in a funeral procession does not violate the terms of this act.
(b) For the purposes of this section the term "dangerous weapon" shall include those weapons specified in G.S. 14-269, 14-269.2, 14-284.1, or 14-288.8 or any other object capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death when used as a weapon.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a person exempted by the provisions of G.S. 14-269(b) or to persons authorized by State or federal law to carry dangerous weapons in the performance of their duties or to any person who obtains a permit to carry a dangerous weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration from the sheriff or police chief, whichever is appropriate, of the locality where such parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration is to take place.
(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to concealed carry of a handgun at a parade or funeral procession by a person with a valid permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter, with a permit considered valid under G.S. 14-415.24, or who is exempt from obtaining a permit pursuant to G.S. 14-415.25. This subsection shall not be construed to permit a person to carry a concealed handgun on any premises where the person in legal possession or control of the premises has posted a conspicuous notice prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun on the premises in accordance with G.S. 14-415.11(c). (1981, c. 684, s. 1; 1983, c. 633; 1993, c. 412, s. 2; c. 539, s. 174; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1997-238, s. 4; 2013-369, s. 15.)
Click to expand...
 
Caine said:
If I remember my obscure NC laws correctly...... In my great state I think there is a law that disallows going armed at a protest or rally, like the ones we saw in Charlottesville, VA.

I'll have to go back and look at it... it may have been a law of the city I was in when I was a police officer.
Click to expand...

That is something I would have supported until I saw video of the protestors outside of a Trump rally ambushing people as they came out.
 
MaggieD said:
This is a great post. I say that because I was going to start a similar thread. Glad Indidnt. Your approach is better than the one I had in mind.

It's my understanding that more than a few demonstrators showed up in combat gear complete with body armor and guns slung over their shoulders. With baseball bats. Wearing masks. Would preventing this conduct be interfering with the 1st and 2nd? I'm not sure.

It is one thing to demonstrate. It is quite another to intimidate and assemble loaded for bear. It doesn't seem as if we have much common sense in this regard. "You can't do that! would be the reaction I'd expect to hear if cops turned away people dressed like this. On private property, one can most certainly regulate dress and acoutrements. Example: banks. Public property would seem to be the rub.

OTOH, you couldn't go into a courthouse so attired. Or a post office. Perhaps the most sensible approach would be to look at how gvmt could restrict participants at these demonstrations. Certainly common sense says we should. But, frankly, I doubt it would pass Supreme Court muster.

I do sincerely believe, though, that a committee of constitutional lawyers ought to give it a go...
Click to expand...

I don't think that you could ban attire, And what is attire is a matter of opinion. Camo, probably. Shields, not so much. I do however believe that the city would have been well within their rights to ban weapons, and decide what constituted a weapon, If it were me I would have banned anything that could be thrown or swung. Clubs and piss filled balloons no. Cities do that all the time. As you say you can't enter the courthouse with even a small pocket knife. Masks are illegal in Va. Yet no arrests were made.

Yet somehow this event was allowed to go down that road. Either deliberately or the worst case of policing I have ever seen.
 
Nap said:
That is something I would have supported until I saw video of the protestors outside of a Trump rally ambushing people as they came out.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised so few people realize just how hated Nazis are by people who perceive them to be an existential threat. White privilege perhaps.
 
Caine said:
Here is it....

G.S. 14-277.2
Click to expand...


Yes....I also wondered about that when I saw pictures of the armed individuals.....

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHCAy_yVYAAOhgr.jpg:large

But the caption indicated that these individuals were outside the park and physically separate from the actual march itself....that may have been the tissue thin legality than allowed then to be present with the weapons, yet not actually participating in the march....but this is speculation, as I was not there.
 
apdst said:
The Supreme Court has already ruled that to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I care as much about that as I care about decent people kicking the asses of these Nazi pieces of ****. If I were American, I'd be saying it's about time for a new amendment. Given the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the direction it will go in. Here's hoping.
 
OlNate said:
I care as much about that as I care about decent people kicking the asses of these Nazi pieces of ****. If I were American, I'd be saying it's about time for a new amendment. Given the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the direction it will go in. Here's hoping.
Click to expand...

That's how some people looked at it during Jim Crow. Ironic, to say the least.
 
calamity said:
I'm surprised so few people realize just how hated Nazis are by people who perceive them to be an existential threat. White privilege perhaps.
Click to expand...

Everyone that is not a Nazi hates them and views them as an existenti threat. There is no middle ground that can be had with them.

Conflating hatred of Nazi's with support for ending free speech is pretty ridiculous.

This doesn't even take into account they are wanting people to attack them. They are essentially trying to recreate the Red vs Brown Shirts environment that lead to someone like Hitler coming into power. The more violence caused in the streets the more the population will push for a more authoritarian government.
 
calamity said:
So, where do we draw the line?
Click to expand...

Simple.

If there was legitimate evidence that the organizers of the event was promising or condoning aggressive violence, or sufficient evidence that an majority of those participating were planning to engage in such and the organizers were making no effort to discourage such activity, then it is reasonable to revoke any permits for the gathering as there is no right to gather for the purpose of performing illegal actions.

However, if there is no evidence that they are planning to engage in such illegal activity, but merely ASSUMPTIONS, then unfortunately the reality of our system...if we are to maintain the integrity of our belief in rights and innocence under the law...is that the line cannot be drawn in a place that exists prior to the groups showing up for their disparate protests.
 
OlNate said:
However, the moment that a movement has been correctly determined to seek the imposing of inequality, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

So "free speech" and "free assembly", but only as long as you exist within a nebulous political ideal, and if you step outside that ideal than the government has the rights to strip you of your speech and ability to assemble. Wonderful thinking :roll:

And naturally, this would never be simply a "this allows me to disallow protests I don't like by just declaring it inequality" type of measure...oh no...

Pro-Choice rally: perfectly fine. Pro-life rally: You're seeking to take away a woman's right to choose which is inequality! Restricted from speaking and assembling!

Pro-gay marriage rally: perfectly fine. Anti-gay marriage rally: You're seeking to take away gays rights to marry other gay people which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Pro-illegal immigration rally: perfectly fine. Anti-illegal immigration rally: You're seeking to take away the rights of those who came here outside of the proper procedures which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Circa 2004 Anti-War rally: perfectly fine. Pro-War rally: You're seeking to take away the rights of foreign combatants and suspected terrorists which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Pro-minimum wage increase rally: perfectly fine. Anti-Minimum Wage rally: You're seeking to take away the right to a living wage and expand income inequality which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Women's rights rally: Perfectly fine. Men's Right rally: You're really just seeking to deny rights from women and to maintain more rights for men which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Pro-tax increase rally: Perfectly fine. Anti-Tax increase rally: You're taking away's peoples right to the general welfare by protecting the 1% which causes lopsided wealth distribution which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Yeah, no wonder you like this rule of thumb.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
So "free speech" and "free assembly", but only as long as you exist within a nebulous political ideal, and if you step outside that ideal than the government has the rights to strip you of your speech and ability to assemble. Wonderful thinking :roll:

And naturally, this would never be simply a "this allows me to disallow protests I don't like by just declaring it inequality" type of measure...oh no...

Pro-Choice rally: perfectly fine. Pro-life rally: You're seeking to take away a woman's right to choose which is inequality! Restricted from speaking and assembling!

Pro-gay marriage rally: perfectly fine. Anti-gay marriage rally: You're seeking to take away gays rights to marry other gay people which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Pro-illegal immigration rally: perfectly fine. Anti-illegal immigration rally: You're seeking to take away the rights of those who came here outside of the proper procedures which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Circa 2004 Anti-War rally: perfectly fine. Pro-War rally: You're seeking to take away the rights of foreign combatants and suspected terrorists which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Pro-minimum wage increase rally: perfectly fine. Anti-Minimum Wage rally: You're seeking to take away the right to a living wage and expand income inequality which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Women's rights rally: Perfectly fine. Men's Right rally: You're really just seeking to deny rights from women and to maintain more rights for men which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Pro-tax increase rally: Perfectly fine. Anti-Tax increase rally: You're taking away's peoples right to the general welfare by protecting the 1% which causes lopsided wealth distribution which is inequality! Restricted from speaking or assembling!

Yeah, no wonder you like this rule of thumb.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry...you think we should be pro-inequality?
 
Nap said:
Everyone that is not a Nazi hates them and views them as an existenti threat. There is no middle ground that can be had with them.

Conflating hatred of Nazi's with support for ending free speech is pretty ridiculous.

This doesn't even take into account they are wanting people to attack them. They are essentially trying to recreate the Red vs Brown Shirts environment that lead to someone like Hitler coming into power. The more violence caused in the streets the more the population will push for a more authoritarian government.
Click to expand...

I understand that something akin to a race war is their goal. But, what can you do? People of color, gays and non-Christians are threatened directly by these scumbags. And, some of them are lashing out violently, as are the white Christians who consider themselves to be the protectors of the people Nazis hate.

I've communicated with s a few of these Antfa types. I can say that they are not at all seeing this as just a few fringe nut cases holding a parade. That is for sure.
 
jimbo said:
I don't think that you could ban attire, And what is attire is a matter of opinion. Camo, probably. Shields, not so much. I do however believe that the city would have been well within their rights to ban weapons, and decide what constituted a weapon, If it were me I would have banned anything that could be thrown or swung. Clubs and piss filled balloons no. Cities do that all the time. As you say you can't enter the courthouse with even a small pocket knife. Masks are illegal in Va. Yet no arrests were made.

Yet somehow this event was allowed to go down that road. Either deliberately or the worst case of policing I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

Good post. When I go into a courthouse, do you think I'd get in wearing a mask? A bank? Banks in our area post that baseball caps pulled down and SUNGLASSES are not permitted. It is my understanding some of those demonstrators, Antifa and BLM I assume, came with BODY ARMOUR. Yeahhhh, that's the ticket.

A lawsuit has been filed by 17 people who were bystanders or innocent attendees were forced by the cops to walk through the melee when all were ordered to disband. More than a few were injured. The atty representing them claims cop orders were not to get involved unless they saw evidence of imminent death. WTF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom