- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 160,900
- Reaction score
- 57,840
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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?
Seen in isolation, Conrad’s order was grounded in solid First Amendment doctrine: Charlottesville could not, he ruled, relocate the racist demonstrators “based on the content of [their] speech.” This is textbook law, but...
The judge failed to answer the central question: When demonstrators plan to carry guns and cause fights, does the government have a compelling interest in regulating their expressive conduct more carefully than it’d be able to otherwise? This is not any one judge’s fault. It is a failure of our First Amendment jurisprudence to reckon with our Second Amendment reality.
The First and Second Amendments clashed in Charlottesville. The guns won.
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?