d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Ann Coulter To Speak At Berkeley On The 27th
Prev1111213141517Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 10,594
Joined: Dec 6 2016
Gold: 8.73
Apr 26 2017 12:59pm
Quote (sylvannos @ Apr 25 2017 11:54am)
The vandalism of property doesn't mean people should be shot, murdered, and incarcerated by the state. BLM exists as a response to state sponsored, police brutality. Trying to paint it as anything other than that is just an appeal to the status quo. Malcolm X was right when he called this shit back in 1963:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkJL_32nmqc

So-called "peaceful protests" hasn't done jack shit. The constitution says all men are created equal, but then black men were slaves. Then we passed amendments to that constitution, but lynchings and Jim Crow made those amendments irrelevant. Then we passed the Civil Rights Act, but black men continued to be the victims of police brutality.

Rioting is the voice of the unheard, who have no voice because the political system is against them.



Sorry, but property isn't more valuable than human beings.

To be against BLM is to be for state sponsored violence. BLM is only asking to not be murdered by police. It's amazing black people haven't formed death squads and overthrown the government, to be honest. All the attacks on BLM are attempts to derail the discussion and tell black people to stop being so uppity. This derailing of BLM is just another case of the status quo dismantling another attempt of securing the constitutional rights of black people.



http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lbe2io.jpg

"Hahaaha jokes on Isreal I was only pretending they were the reason for the Treaty of Versailles!"



I never said I'm against freedom of speech and assembly. Quite the opposite. You're just straw manning what I'm saying.

These groups of white supremacists, nazis, and klansmen can circlejerk with one another all they want. That's not what people are against. These groups have gone beyond freedom of speech and into the realm of shouting "I'M GOING TO BLOW THIS PLANE UP AND ALL YOU FUCKERS ON IT WITH THIS BOMB!" in a crowded airplane a mile in the sky.

We already have laws against this stuff. You can play racist D&D all you want, but you can't go light a cross on fire in front of a black family's house.

The white nationalists are openly embracing fascism. They are attempting to organize the dismantling of democracy so they can implement genocide. They are not coming from a position of good faith. They fully intend to dismantle the first amendment. We know this because they've said so.



"God Emperor Trump" has been tossed around since he started his campaign. If you want Warhammer 40,000 with your God Emperor, you're going to get the Ruinous Powers, the Traitor Legions, and all of the maim/kill/burn/purging.

Jokes aside, conservatives are putting party before country. If we were capable of getting in bed with Stalin, we can put aside party differences and oppose far-right, fascist, white supremacists.



Don't move the goalposts. You were dismissing criticisms as invalid because some minorities were present.



No amount of hand-waving will change the history of the Judenrat and Cappos during the Holocaust. There were Jews who suffered at the hands of other Jews who decided to throw their lot in with the Nazi Party. Don't ever think the presence of one group of people within a larger political group means that group is immune to violence from the larger group.



"BUT BLM ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS!"

Get out of here with that nonsense. Thinking Obama was a Manchurian Candidate doesn't even come close to the legitimacy of police brutality against black people.



They only protected BLM events went the police started cracking down on them for illegal arms trafficking and possession of bomb making materials lol. They were fully ready to open fire on BLM protestors over property damage.



How can I state this?

They.

Have.

Literally.

Proclaimed.

Themselves.

As.

Nazis/white supremacists/antisemites.

They posted about going to the rally on social media. They were literally doing nazi salutes. Domigo has a history of violence, was dishonorably discharged, attacked that woman out of nowhere when there was no risk to himself, and is the founder of a white supremacist group that is trying to organize genocide and dismantling of democracy.

It's also hilarious that you label the antifa groups as "terrorists," but openly nazi nazis totally aren't nazis.



Uhhh....that just makes it worse? He's pandering to non-antifa at that point. His omission of the guy who threw the punch of being a nazi isn't a good thing. I guess views and likes are more important than disrupting the white supremacist narrative. Anyone to the left of Mussolini is a terrorist and an extremist who needs to be punched in the face.




You're displaying cognitive dissonance for refusing to recognize the racism present within your side of the aisle. You're refusing to call McInnes' out on his antisemitism, misogyny, racism, and hipsterism despite all the evidence to the contrary.



It's still a really stupid comparison. The situation is more like a group of men threatening to rape a woman, then everyone gets upset the women shoots the attackers in self defense like she was in the wrong.


Supreme Court ruled that setting a cross on fire in front of a black family's house is a form of free speech and is protected. I'm not sure how that decision came around, but it's precedent
Member
Posts: 65,046
Joined: Jul 7 2008
Gold: Locked
Apr 26 2017 01:02pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 26 2017 11:45am)
Actually thats literally what it means to oppose the right to free speech. Think about what you just said.


Freedom of speech is the concept that you don't get thrown in jail for saying what you want. It's a legal protection, not a societal one.
Member
Posts: 45,908
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Apr 26 2017 01:16pm
Quote (BardOfXiix @ Apr 26 2017 01:02pm)
Freedom of speech is the concept that you don't get thrown in jail for saying what you want. It's a legal protection, not a societal one.


And denying someone their rightful platform is an assault on free speech. Thats direct opposition to someones right to free speech.
Member
Posts: 10,594
Joined: Dec 6 2016
Gold: 8.73
Apr 26 2017 01:23pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 26 2017 02:16pm)
And denying someone their rightful platform is an assault on free speech. Thats direct opposition to someones right to free speech.


It would only breach their right to free speech if the person denying them platform were a government entity.

I'm not sure why you're struggling so much with this concept
Member
Posts: 48,569
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
Apr 26 2017 02:21pm
Quote (BardOfXiix @ Apr 26 2017 01:29pm)
I don't think many bastions of liberalism are calling for Coulter to be thrown in jail. Protesting an individual, what they stand for, or what they say is not attempting to shut down free speech.


It is shutting down free speech, just not the right to free speech.
Member
Posts: 65,046
Joined: Jul 7 2008
Gold: Locked
Apr 26 2017 02:51pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 26 2017 12:16pm)
And denying someone their rightful platform is an assault on free speech. Thats direct opposition to someones right to free speech.


So if I call up Fox news and tell them I want to talk on their show and they say no, are they assaulting my free speech?

If Fox says yes, then polls their normal viewing audience and the audience says no, is that an assault on my free speech?

If I get on air and everybody changes the channel or pushes mute, is that an assault on my free speech?

Where's the line between assaulting an idea and assaulting speech? Do we as individuals have a right to public platform?

This argument is veering towards a Citizens United discussion I had some time ago with Santara.
Member
Posts: 45,908
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Apr 26 2017 03:30pm
Quote (SuperButt420 @ Apr 26 2017 01:23pm)
It would only breach their right to free speech if the person denying them platform were a government entity.

I'm not sure why you're struggling so much with this concept


It would be illegal violation of the 1st amendment if a government entity shut down their right to free speech.
If protesters try to shut down a speaker, thats an assault on free speech. If they use disorderly tactics, rioting and violence to shut it down, its an illegal assault on free speech.

These people are expressly attempting to stop Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley, their objective being to deny her the invited platform she is entitled by the 1st amendment (unlike say calling into fox news and they say no)
Their stated goal is to deny her the right to speak, and that is as plain an assault on free speech as it gets.
Member
Posts: 31,203
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Gold: 0.00
Apr 26 2017 04:01pm
Quote (SuperButt420 @ Apr 26 2017 10:59am)
Supreme Court ruled that setting a cross on fire in front of a black family's house is a form of free speech and is protected. I'm not sure how that decision came around, but it's precedent


Wrong.

They ruled in Virginia vs. Black (2003) that cross burning with the intent to intimidate is something that can be made illegal.

Cross burning alone is legal and can't be banned, but burning a cross deliberately in front of a black family's home can absolutely be outlawed.
Member
Posts: 45,908
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Apr 26 2017 04:17pm
Quote (sylvannos @ Apr 26 2017 04:01pm)
Wrong.

They ruled in Virginia vs. Black (2003) that cross burning with the intent to intimidate is something that can be made illegal.

Cross burning alone is legal and can't be banned, but burning a cross deliberately in front of a black family's home can absolutely be outlawed.


Intent to intimidate can be ruled illegal, as can other immediate threats deriving from fighting words precedent where the manner and hostility and direct provocation of speech can be restricted only insofar as its content neutral. R.A.V v St Paul wasn't contradictory with this- it states that a law that attempts to criminalize burning a cross deliberately in front of a black family's home by itself is not enough to be outlawed, you need to prove the intimidation- usually not very hard with a crossburning mind you- and that is outlawed with content-neutral legislation that doesn't have to directly reference a "symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti" like the unconstitutional minnesota law.

Under the minnesota statute, if the klan applied for a permit, figured out the legal fire code laws and did a burning of crosses in a black neighborhood while maintaining a cheery manner and making no direct threats, they could be arrested on grounds of "burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender". But under the 1st amendment, their free speech is protected, and the law unconstitutional and thus struck down. If they were making threats against the black families, they could be arrested for the threats and the burning crosses would be irrelevant.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 26 2017 04:18pm
Member
Posts: 33,534
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Apr 26 2017 05:05pm
Visit canceled :zzz:

Are the intolerant of the lefties among us proud of their deeds?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1111213141517Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll