(08-15-2017, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote:

(08-15-2017, 10:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: From a legal standpoint, I don't agree with this nor do I think you can make the argument that they're inciting ethnic cleansing by just waving flags and looking like complete douche bags with their fascist shields and tiki torches. 

I also don't think the courts would agree that those actions amount to that.

Quote:Freedom of Speech and Symbolism


In the centuries since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the idea of free speech has grown to mean freedom of expression. This is because the courts, and therefore the people, understood that the framers of the Constitution intended that the people be free to express themselves, without fear of governmental reprisal.

In times of strife, U.S. citizens began publicly expressing themselves in more forthright ways. While the colonists who engaged in the protest now known as the “Boston Tea Party,” saw the action as an extreme measure, they were all engaged against the same foe. As America moved through the 20th century, many people began seeking yet more social and political change, often making their points through symbolic speech.

Demonstrations, riots, sit-ins, and parades occurred more frequently, and protesters expressed themselves in ways that scandalized others. Handmade signs expressing protesters’ opinions, carried in protest marches and sit-ins, were often seen as derogatory; and other actions, such as flag burning, inflamed the emotions of others.

Many people who disagree with, not only the ideas of such protesters, but their methods, might think they’ve gone too far in their actions, and that such disrespectful displays should be banned. The question, however, became one of intent: What did the Founding Fathers intend that true freedom should mean to the citizens of the new nation?

Limits to Free Speech

Although symbolic speech has long been included in the people’s freedom of speech, it does not mean that people are free to say – or express – anything they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. The Supreme Court has determined that certain expressions, such as those considered to be obscene, the spouting of lies about someone, and those inciting violence or sedition, are not free. This is because such expressions are deemed to cause harm to the people in general.

What this means, in legal terms, is that there must be a way to determine what types of speech are protected, and what types of expression should be banned. Restrictions on the First Amendment right to free speech have been developed over the years, as the Supreme Court has made decisions on types of expression that are harmful.

Incitement to Violence

Statements or actions that incite others to engage in violence are not protected under the First Amendment. In 1969, members of the Ku Klux Klan were convicted of advocating violence as a means of political reform. One of the men’s speeches referred to taking revenge against “niggers,” and “Jews,” and everyone who supported them.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled that promotion of the use of violence or force is not protected, if it is done in a way that is likely to result in such action. However, in this example of symbolic speech under fire, the Court reversed the Klan conviction, as the statements made at the rally did not create an imminent intent to do violence.

(08-14-2017, 10:42 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Whether people think Trump's condemnation of the KKK, and Nazi's was genuine, I don't think you can dismiss the fact that Trump had the balls to actually stand up there and say that. I honestly didn't expect him to, and I doubt many who don't like him did either.

(08-15-2017, 10:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://legaldictionary.net/symbolic-speech/

Meanwhile: 39 shootings in Chicago this weekend, 9 deaths. No national media outrage. Why is that? https://t.co/9Crutnnrp8

— Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) August 14, 2017

(08-15-2017, 10:17 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pretty much summed up what I said. That's why you're allowed to organize a protest and wave the flag. Even the previously ruling of the KKK saying they need to "take revenge" on black people and jews was over turned and allowed. 

(08-15-2017, 10:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: There was more and other links.  I'm still thinking that "inciting" is not covered but I didn't find the exact wording...so I'll admit that the comic is not 100% right at the point.  

(08-15-2017, 10:17 AM)Griever Wrote: and it only took them what, 2 days?

they must have waited to draft the "condemnation" and the "press conference" for when bannon was on the shitter

(08-15-2017, 11:46 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: You and everyone else say that like 2 days is an eternity. If Trump had taken a month to acknowledge anything then yeah, I'd be critical.

While Trump didnt specifically denounce the KKK, Nazis etc.... he did initially respond to what happened and denounced the violence the same day it happened.  People got upset that he didn't specifically target any groups in is condemnation and so barely even "2 days" later he specifically denounced them.

(08-15-2017, 11:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: In Trump time 2 days is forever.  He tweeted about the CEO quitting his post within hours.

He shares FOX News stories right after they air...and promotes upcoming ones.

The reason people get upset is this not the first time Trump has had the opportunity to denounce Nazis/white supremacists and every time he hedges his words.

Versus when important things like a store not carrying his daughter's handbags in which he responds immediately.

This isn't a mealy mouthed man.  He's not afraid to insult those he perceives as criticizing him or his "enemies".  That it took two days just to say Nazis are bad says a lot.

(08-14-2017, 11:20 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: But they aren't.

I don't think you can be a member of the right (small gov't, fiscal conservatism) and also be a national socialist. 

They've just used that label as a way to legitimize themselves and calling them that only emboldens them and pushes actual members of the political right further away from being able to partake in politics. 

(08-15-2017, 01:49 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The thing that gets me is people kept saying, "Trump won't denounce them". So what does he do? He denounces them and people then change the narrative to "Well it took him 2 days".


I means it's border line hilarious. If Trump said it two hours later people would be complaining about how he said it two hours later. If he said it 10 minutes later people would be complaining about how his initial statement should have denounced them right off the bat so we wouldn't have to wait 10 minutes for him to denounce them, so clearly the guys either a racist or a "politician".

(08-15-2017, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to disagree with you. In political science, there are of course many ideologies. Because our country is inherently within the classical liberalism spectrum, most ideologies fit along the original and modern dilemmas. The original dilemma concerns itself with freedom v. order, the modern concerns itself with freedom v. equality. Within classical liberalism, all of the ideologies believe in limited government, to an extent and for certain things.

The four overarching ideological boxes we use for these are libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, and communitarianism.


The alt-right movement does fall within the conservatism square because conservatism does not call for small government when dealing with societal order.

(08-15-2017, 02:00 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: My problem with the "Alt right" name given to these people is that it disguises who and what they really are. These people should NOT be called some alternative name like "alt right" because it gives them something to hide behind. They should be identified by what they really are which is white supremacists.


After all, it was white supremacists who came up with the term "alt right" anyway. Everyone else just simply adopted it as an identifier for some strange reason. Think about it.

(08-14-2017, 07:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Two months ago today, a Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer tried to assassinate ~10% of elected GOP members at baseball practice.


We have big problems that go beyond a white supremacist.

(08-15-2017, 10:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: From a legal standpoint, I don't agree with this nor do I think you can make the argument that they're inciting ethnic cleansing by just waving flags and looking like complete douche bags with their fascist shields and tiki torches. 

I also don't think the courts would agree that those actions amount to that.

(08-15-2017, 02:24 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. 

When you have former federal judges and Fox News personalities telling people to shoot tyrants, a president who said he could get away with shooting people, candidates shooting at pictures of their opponents, candidates telling people to exercise Second Amendment remedies, etc., then yes, we have a bigger problem.

It's ignorant people full of hate calling on other people to incite violence. It's unfortunate that they give a black eye to gun owners in the same way white supremacists give a black eye to white people.

Don't blame the guns. Blame people who keep spreading ill feelings and misconceptions because of fear.

(08-15-2017, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, essentially we have all been stating that using violence against speech you don't like is wrong.  Then GMDino posts a comic about how it is ok to use physical violence against Nazi's.  One need wonder no longer how the level of political violence in this country has been rising the past year or so.

Honestly, GMDino should be ashamed.  I'm sure he'll weasel out by saying he just posted it for the purposes of discussion but I'm not buying it.

(08-15-2017, 02:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not ashamed at all.   I'd think everyone who has defended Nazis and refused to say Nazis are bad/evil/wrong should be ashamed...but I digress.

Quote:No one in the comic is violent.  They say they would like to get violent and feel that they have the right to because they were incited.

I, for the 100th time, do not condone violence.

I, for the 100th time, do not have  a problem with people getting upset and feeling violent and wanting to shut down Nazis.

Quote:I posted the comic because I agree that the Nazis are wrong, inciting violence against them and that they will reap what they sow.

Quote:Discuss!