US Politics: Now with Alt Facts

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Actions yes. Words? Not so much.

Depends what the words are.
If you're publicly advocating or promoting actions or policies aimed at specific groups (like ethnic cleansing) then you should expect said groups to react with some sort of violence of their own. If you're using your 1st Amendment rights for hate speech, you can't be surprised that this puts your physical being at risk: it's part of the twisted game you're playing. Technically, the law doesn't make you free from physical assault at all: it only deters and punishes such action. As an adult you're still fully responsible for what you say and must assume the consequences of expressing your views, just as the people who would assault you will be fully responsible for what they do to you. The law is one thing. Basic human behavior and agency is something else. In short, while being an asshole may be legal, you'll have to reap whatever you sow, legal or not.
Incidentally, let's not forget that the 1st Amendment does not protect all words, far from it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Incidentally, let's not forget that the 1st Amendment does not protect all words, far from it.

Sure, yelling fire in a crowded theater or its equivalent. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, yelling fire in a crowded theater or its equivalent. 

And hate speech, and provocative speech intended to evoke a response, and...

[Kalbear]

Also, apparently Trump specifically called the park service to produce pictures that confirmed his giant crowds. Seriously. This is what we live in. 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And hate speech, and provocative speech intended to evoke a response, and...

Not sure how you define those accurately though. Back in the days when I took BART to work there was this little guy who would hand out little Nazi tracts at the South San Francisco Station every morning. They were pretty vile (I would occasionally pick one up off a seat or the ground out of curiosity) That guy was there for years. Might still be there for all I know.

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, yelling fire in a crowded theater or its equivalent. 

Under US law, "incitement to imminent lawless action" is forbidden. Also, if the circumstances make it clear that your speech "threatens violence" or seeks to "provoke an immediate act of violence" it is no longer constitutionally protected.

This is why statutes forbidding public cross-burning are constitutional.

People like Richard Spencer generally flirt with illegality in the first place. Though they can be astute enough to check what the local statutes on hate speech are and choose their words carefully when speaking.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not sure how you define those accurately though. Back in the days when I took BART to work there was this little guy who would hand out little Nazi tracts at the South San Francisco Station every morning. They were pretty vile (I would occasionally pick one up off a seat or the ground out of curiosity) That guy was there for years. Might still be there for all I know.

And I bet if you were a jewish person and punched him, you would get off scot-free. 

The cool thing is that the law isn't perfect, and that's why we have things like judges and juries and prior cases. You don't have to define everything ahead of time. 

[Swordfish]

57 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Eh, that's actually a real question. Given what I read on the internet here or there, black/arabic Muslim gay women probably feel like war has very much been declared against them these days.

I mean, I don't support physical violence and am extremely pacifist myself but how much verbal violence should one endure before answering with physical violence? Isn't it predictable that hate speech or the advocacy of white supremacy will lead to some kind of violent reaction? And how should one consider groups that actually support the political implementation of racist or sexist policies?

Let's bear in mind that in some countries, what Richard Spencer says or does is illegal. Yeah, I know the US is big on the 1st amendment but then... If you want to exercise 1st amendment rights to verbally attack people different from you (and also promote policies harmful to them), you should expect to assume all the consequences of that, right? I mean, surely you can't take freedom of speech without any kind of responsibility for said speech?

Uh... The consequences of exercising free speech are not getting sucker punched by a random person on the street.

That is not how this works.  That is not how this works at all.

 

[TrueMetis]

Just now, Swordfish said:

Uh... The consequences of exercising free speech are not getting sucker punched by a random person on the street.

That is not how this works.  That is not how this works at all.

 

Since when?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Uh... The consequences of exercising free speech are not getting sucker punched by a random person on the street.

That is not how this works.  That is not how this works at all.

 

Well to be fair, it might be, but the consequence for taking that sucker punch is not going to be negated by "hey, that guy said some shit I don't appreciate".

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Since when?

Since social contracts have existed.  

The notion that this kind of assault is justified is absurd.  I hope they arrested the guy who did it.

What was he even talking about when it happened?  i haven't heard the audio.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Well to be fair, it might be, but the consequence for taking that sucker punch is not going to be negated by "hey, that guy said some shit I don't appreciate".

And sometimes it is, actually. Whole host of laws associated with that, as it turns out, as pointed out above.