Must we accept ?

[Michael]

The Young Turks made a report about a man beaten by a group of Unite the Right attendees in a parking lot and showed a single frame of video, and really failed to give accurate context, blaming only one side for the violence. In fact, the man who was beaten had just been part of a group who attacked one of the attendees during a fight between the two sides, which was captured by Duerst the Worst's livestream at 5:40 of the 8 min and 20 sec video.

This shows how difficult it is to get details from a riot and that it's easy to find stories and video that support your confirmation bias.

[Steve James]

Like I said, the free speech argument is bogus. That's not to argue that Antifa (or, should we say their members or supporters who commit bad acts) should not be prosecuted for criminal acts. It is not, as DT shows, not against free speech to shout someone down.

If you agree that ISIL has just as much right to speak as the KKK, then we'll be talking principles. I.e., free speech as something that protects speech that we don't like. However, the SC has ruled that some types of speech are dangerous.

But, I think I've already asked you what should be done about Antifa, other than saying that the "fa" have the right to speak. Let's agree, for example, that white supremacist who went into a church and murdered nine people because of his ideology, do we condemn the ideology or the act it encouraged? I have no problem with treating criminals as criminals.

[Steve James]

I'd like to see the reaction to an Antifa parade in a KKK town. After all, the KKK go to "liberal/leftist" cities and institutions they want to protest for their demonstrations. I'd like to see the situations reversed.

[Michael]

Haven't had my coffee yet. DT?

[Steve James]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to comment strongly on the Saturday violence in Charlottesville infuriated Israeli leaders, who pressured him Thursday to directly condemn anti-semitic groups at the rally.

Israeli political leaders noted that Netanyahu, who in the past has quickly denounced high profile anti-semitic acts, took three days to respond to Charlottesville with a tweet that did not explicitly address the rally, according to the Associated Press. Netanyahu’s tweet decried anti-semitism and neo-Nazis in general and called on leaders to denounce anti-semitic hatred.

Israeli leaders were quick to assert that Netanyahu refused to take a strong stance against the groups at Charlottesville to avoid criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump.

Israel “must not stammer or hesitate in the face of anti-Semitism,” said Israeli deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben-Dahan. “Apparently some don’t want to enrage Trump.” Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni echoed Ben-Dahan’s criticism of Netanyahu, according to AP.

Eytan Gilboa, U.S. Israeli relations expert at Israel’s Bar Ilan University, said Ben-Dahan’s criticisms were accurate and that Netanyahu’s reticence to criticize Trump alienated American Jews.

“He does not want to alienate Trump,” Gilboa told AP.

Lawmaker and leader of the Israeli opposition party, Shelly Yachimovich, pulled no punches in her criticism of Netanyahu on Facebook.

“And you, prime minister of the Jewish people in their land, who warns us about the Holocaust every Monday and Thursday, with overdoses of fear and arrogance and weeks of ‘Never Again,’ what about you?” Yachimovich said in her post.

Ron Dermer, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., shared in a post on his Facebook page that Netanyahu asked him to “convey Israel’s outrage” over the anti-semitic demonstrations.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu’s exact words were that these people should crawl back under the rock they came from,” the post said.

Still, Jewish leaders remained dissatisfied with Netanyahu’s comments, both direct and indirect.

Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest synagogue movement in America, told AP that Netanyahu “did harm to the cause of Israel and the cause of the Jewish people by having such a delayed reaction.”

“Three days went by without a full-throated condemnation. It was quite distressing,” Jacobs added.

Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett took point in Israel’s denunciation of the Charlottesville rally, and called on U.S. leaders Sunday to “condemn and denounce the displays of antisemitism seen over the past few days,” according to The Jerusalem Post.

[Michael]

Free speech is not an absolute right, there are no perfect rules, but it is a foundational tool, as Dr. Jordan Peterson puts it, that allows society to be self-correcting by providing for the peaceful exchange of ideas. Legally, there are exceptions, you've mentioned a couple about fighting words and the fire in the theater thing.

I think that the first amendment and the free speech principle is very well developed and has matured and evolved in this country to the extent that it's the rare exception when it can not be accepted on face value in the way I mentioned a few posts previously about the Unite the Right rally being legally supported by the ACLU and the federal courts.

So with your three examples: (1) Nazis speaking and promoting actual genocide while marching down an avenue of Holocaust survivors in NYC [I filled in perhaps some of the blanks from what you've said, but I think this is what you were getting at, yes?]; (2) ISIL marching somewhere in the USA; or (3) Antifa marching in a town with a large group of resident KKK. In such cases, is the free speech argument bogus?

I have to infer some things about what you're saying, but I agree with you that to simply say these groups have a first amendment right and that's all you need to know is insufficient or bogus. That would not be enough for these exceptional cases to: (1) expect people living in these places to placidly accept the presence of such marches by their violent and murderous enemies, (2) expect local police to be able to contain the violence without logistical, tactical, budgetary and political limitations, and (3) ignore the likelihood of agitators preventing these from being merely civil events.

As I said in the discussion about Islamic terror, I think the US Constitution and other laws we have are sufficient to deal with ideologies, groups and activities that are exceptional to the first amendment, such as inciting violence or insurrection.

The problem I see is that Milo speaking at Berkeley is equated with these exceptional cases, or that Dr. Jordan Peterson or Gad Saad are accused in a Canadian senate hearing of promoting genocide against transgenders because they provide scientific, biological and psychological arguments why a vague law enforcing gender neutral pronouns is problematic, and are therefore vilified and de-platformed again and again.

These people were de-platformed and those who wanted to hear one of them speak were physically attacked, under the same pre-text that I outlined above, that they do not deserve first amendment rights since they are: nazis/racists/mysoginists/anti-gay/transphobic/etc. This fantastic exaggeration by the left of what is outside the bounds of first amendment protection is what I see as a serious problem. Because of my limited viewpoint, I consider it more dangerous overall than the KKK and neo-nazis.

I think this denial by the left of legitimate first amendment rights to typical conservatives is also driving the popularity of white nationalists, whom I also consider more dangerous than the KKK or neo-nazis for reasons I've explained in this discussion, as well as the previous one on Berkeley.

[Steve James]

The problem I see is that Milo speaking at Berkeley is equated with these exceptional cases,

It's not Milo, the person; it's what he espouses. At any rate, my point was not that he shouldn't be allowed to speak. My point was that you couldn't expect people not to protest on the basis of "free speech." And, I used the example of an ISIL parade, not to focus on their right to spread their message, but to point out that there would inevitably be counter-demonstrations. If a counter-demonstrator throws a bottle, fires a shot, or beats and IS member up, will you blame the demonstrators? Will those demonstrations cause you to condemn the demonstrators as trying to destroy free speech? Who's going to join IS because of the demonstrations? And --if someone is "radicalized" because of those demonstrations, do we sympathize?

I asked you specifically what we should do about the Antifa who only carry signs and yell slogans. We have to agree that, as DT points out, there was violence on "both sides." But, as he says, "there were also some good people out there" (i.e., those who weren't neo-Nazis or KKK members. That has to be true for Antifa and other "leftists" as well.

Btw, I'm not at all interested in what free speech is in Canada. There are places in Canada where it's illegal to have a sign in English.

I think this denial by the left of legitimate first amendment rights to typical conservatives is also driving the popularity of white nationalists, whom I also consider more dangerous than the KKK or neo-nazis for reasons I've explained in this discussion, as well as the previous one on Berkeley.

You are assuming your original premise. A: the left has not prevented anyone from hearing Milo's views, or those of the KKK. That's completely different from violence by Antifa. Nazi views are as easy to find as a smartphone. B: the KKK and Nazis are by definition "white nationalists." They are one of dozens of such organizations, with wizards and leaders who today are parts of the government. That's not true of Antifa.

[Trick]

will it all come to the point of 'no speach & no participation hate crime' in 'the west', then I continue to happily stay here in China

[Michael]

For the umpteenth time, people attempting to hear Milo were peacefully waiting outside the building and were viciously attacked by Antifa without any provocation. One man pepper sprayed a woman in the face as she was giving an interview. There is footage of two other women trying to escape the Antifa mob to the side and being hit over the head with poles repeatedly, even after one of them climbed the barricade. Another man was beaten unconscious and then beaten as he lie on the street. A group of maybe 10 Antifa surrounded one man trying to talk to them and one of them slammed a bike lock down on his head. After being struck, the man ran for his life and was pursued by this gang off camera.

Do the views Milo espouses warrant this kind of unprovoked initiation of violence? If so, please answer the questions I posed during that discussion generally about what those reasons are that make Milo's audience deserving of this. If it's the comments caught on video that got him dumped from that conservative convention, just say so, it will be enough to understand your argument. As it is, I wonder if we're on the same page about what the exceptional cases really are.

My view is that Milo is not so dangerous to become an exception and this case is a typical exaggerated reaction and escalation by Antifa and part of the leftist demonizing anyone who disagree with them preceding the violence that goes unreported in the media.

[Steve James]

I asked simple questions. OK, Antifa bad. What should we you suggest we do?

[Michael]

Sorry, just a bit frustrated.

[Steve James]

It's ok. My opinion is still that fine people do not walk with Nazis, and that carrying a Nazis flag next to an American flag is the ultimate disrespectful act to those the Nazis killed, including American soldiers. I say that them today the way we did then.