Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 114

Thread: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

  1. #1
    Heavy Hitter



    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    66,557

    When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

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

    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?

  2. #2
    Little Miss Sunshine
    TheGoverness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Nacogdoches, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    24,680

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    If the speech is not advocating violence and they aren't terrorizing people, then I see no reason for the authorities to shut it down, even if it's so disgusting and reprehensible.

    Where I would draw the line is if they are actively trying to incite violence. That is a big no-no, and that is not (and shouldn't be) protected speech.
    "Everyone makes mistakes. It's what makes us human."
    CLASS OF 2021
    PRIDE


  3. #3
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,004

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    The author is an idiot. Not a thing bad that happened had a thing to do with the 1A or the 2A -- it was all already illegal -- and restricting either is a stupid, bad, reactionary impulse.

    Restricting rights is not the answer. The impulse to do so is authoritarian.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #4
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    20,402

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, and enforced through government, law enforcement, and the courts.

    Since we are a Constitutional Republic, there really is no choice but to enforce the law regardless of the costs. We cannot constitutionally abridge rights due to difficulty in guaranteeing them. The only other choice, is to amend the Constitution. I found this last choice repugnant, if done to take the easy and lazy way out.

    Freedom is not easy, folks. It takes a great deal of effort and courage. Otherwise, it tends to erode away ...
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

  5. #5
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    20,402

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    The author is an idiot. Not a thing bad that happened had a thing to do with the 1A or the 2A -- it was all already illegal -- and restricting either is a stupid, bad, reactionary impulse.

    Restricting rights is not the answer. The impulse to do so is authoritarian.
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

  6. #6
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,004

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    Rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, and enforced through government, law enforcement, and the courts.

    Since we are a Constitutional Republic, there really is no choice but to enforce the law regardless of the costs. We cannot constitutionally abridge rights due to difficulty in guaranteeing them. The only other choice, is to amend the Constitution. I found this last choice repugnant, if done to take the easy and lazy way out.

    Freedom is not easy, folks. It takes a great deal of effort and courage. Otherwise, it tends to erode away ...
    Soooo many people seem to think it should be, and worse, because it isn't, it's not worth it.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #7
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,244
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    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?
    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...
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #8
    Guru

    Rexedgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,524

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    There were news reports and photos of heavily armed demonstrators. They weren't id'd as far as right, left or center. Were the numbers over reported? With people fighting and armed with firearms, I am impressed no one was killed by gunfire.

  9. #9
    Guru OlNate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,269

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    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?
    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.
    Life's too short...

  10. #10
    Heavy Hitter



    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    66,557

    Re: When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexedgar View Post
    There were news reports and photos of heavily armed demonstrators. They weren't id'd as far as right, left or center. Were the numbers over reported? With people fighting and armed with firearms, I am impressed no one was killed by gunfire.
    I read reports of weapons caches stashed all over the city, which even included a battering ram. Pretty nuts, IMO.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... 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
  •