Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 114

Thread: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

  1. #21
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-15-18 @ 09:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    14,957

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisdom View Post
    It would have been perfectly legal for the authorities to ban all guns from the demonstration, just as authorities can ban guns at other political rallies. Guns can be banned from state government property without violating the 2nd Amendment, especially when there are safety concerns.
    If that's true, it may come into play at some point.
    In this case, was there a history of gun violence at such protests? If no, I think it would be hard to justify. But if it is the state's call legally, their call, and they may also be challenged on it. If that became a nationally highlighted battle, with guns coming out on top, maybe it would have been better to just let it be. Guns and such don't seem to have been the root cause or even an important factor.

    I think there is some plausibility in saying that if a small town doesn't feel equipped/experience with such tinder boxes of violence, they may need to put restrictions to ensure safety. In this case, they probably should have, considering they seem to agree they simply didn't have enough LEO and had almost no control over ingress/egress and the protest area itself, to ensure safety. But how does one predict that? Easy to say in hindsight.

  2. #22
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    206

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    If that's true, it may come into play at some point.
    In this case, was there a history of gun violence at such protests? If no, I think it would be hard to justify. But if it is the state's call legally, their call, and they may also be challenged on it. If that became a nationally highlighted battle, with guns coming out on top, maybe it would have been better to just let it be. Guns and such don't seem to have been the root cause or even an important factor.

    I think there is some plausibility in saying that if a small town doesn't feel equipped/experience with such tinder boxes of violence, they may need to put restrictions to ensure safety. In this case, they probably should have, considering they seem to agree they simply didn't have enough LEO and had almost no control over ingress/egress and the protest area itself, to ensure safety. But how does one predict that? Easy to say in hindsight.
    The KKK and neo-Nazis have a long history of using criminal violence against others. Secondly, the display of weapons is used to silence others, which affects other people's first amendment rights, and they have no requirement in protecting their first amendment rights of showing that the guns will actually be fired. The presence of neo-Nazis and KKK members being more heavily armed than the police is enough for a court to order a weapons ban, to preserve first amendment rights. After all, one does not need a gun to speak. Far from it.

    You are right, the town did not have the resources to protect everyone's safety -- including the KKK people.

    You may not believe this, but there is also a line of legal reasoning that weighs the value of the speech in determining how big the demonstration can be. During the civil rights movement, courts allowed protestors for civil rights to even block road ways. One of the basis given by the courts for allowing that was because the demonstrations were trying to gain equal civil liberty for people of color. By the same reasoning, this actually gives a legal basis for limiting a neo-Nazi demonstration that is supporting racism, and the elimination of our present form of government. It's weird because one would think that should not be a factor in a first-amendment decision, but the courts have used this line of reasoning for decades. The courts have simply adopted Aristotle's virtue ethics as part of their legal reasoning.

    Bottom line --- the issue is legally more complicated and nuanced than many on social media realize. I'm not an expert in first amendment law, but am an expert in other legal areas. I'm still somewhat familiar with the court decisions on the first amendment.

  3. #23
    Heavy Hitter



    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    83,122

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    Well 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."

  4. #24
    Sage
    MrWonka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    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?
    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.

  5. #25
    Sage
    OlNate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    10-12-18 @ 10:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,542

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    IMO, free speech covers all the gauntlets, and it should never be suppressed. However, as in real life, if what you say pisses people off to the point that they want to kick your ass, well, expect an ass-kicking. You shout at black people, calling them N-words, or shout at Jews that they need to stoke the ovens, you know you are asking for an ass-kicking. Hell, you walk up to Joe on the street, call him a mother****er who eats dry horse****, chances are one out 5 is gonna kick your ass.

    So, the argument is---do people have a right to knowingly instigate a gang fight, an armed gang fight at that?
    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.
    Life's too short...

  6. #26
    Heavy Hitter



    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    83,122

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by OlNate View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Jackson, MS
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,413

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    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."
    Per your example: yes, just because someone is offended by you it doesnt give them the right to assault you.

  8. #28
    Heavy Hitter



    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    83,122

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by Nap View Post
    Per your example: yes, just because someone is offended by you it doesnt give them the right to assault you.
    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.

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Jackson, MS
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,413

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #30
    Heavy Hitter



    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    83,122

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by Nap View Post
    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.
    With deadly force? Hmmm...I kind of doubt that. If so, that's a law which needs changing.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •