Armed Neo-Nazis Crash Detroit Pride with Police Escort (see staff post)

The Grizz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,409
Maybe you shouldn't let people you know are a threat gather in large groups. Maybe you handle them BY NOT LETTING THEM BE THERE AT ALL.

Literal no-win situation when we allow nazis to exist, march, and threaten people with violence. Their very existence is a threat of violence. It should be illegal to proclaim that you're a nazi.

But, you right. No-win situation. Because we have to let nazis exist. For some reason.

(Hint: white supremacy)

And yes, fuck ALL cops.
Get out of here with this fuck ALL cops mentality. I have family members who are cops and they are good, hard working, family oriented people. Not all cops are total assholes, like many here on Era like to think.
 

skillzilla81

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,221
Get out of here with this fuck ALL cops mentality. I have family members who are cops and they are good, hard working, family oriented people. Not all cops are total assholes, like many here on Era like to think.
You do you.

I'll do me.

Fuck ALL cops.

Yo, all the things you’ve mentioned are not the job of the police, but the lawmakers.
Yes, I'm aware that white supremacy is protected and maintained by the lawmakers and those used to enforce the laws (when and how they choose to do that).
 

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,280
Yo, all the things you’ve mentioned are not the job of the police, but the lawmakers.
Well the cops are hardly adverse shutting down BLM harand similar groups without the city having to step in... maybe people are just tired of the constant double standards and people defending this shit by bringing stuff up like the government allowed it.

Get out of here with this fuck ALL cops mentality. I have family members who are cops and they are good, hard working, family oriented people. Not all cops are total assholes, like many here on Era like to think.
They just abide the horrible cops which is the real issue. Being a "good" cop in a corrupt system that rewards the worst elements doesn't mean all that much.
 

Seik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,668
Québec City
Get out of here with this fuck ALL cops mentality. I have family members who are cops and they are good, hard working, family oriented people. Not all cops are total assholes, like many here on Era like to think.
Fuck all cops.

Even the most family oriented, well intended and level-headed people in the police will have to follow order if said order is ''Protect those Nazis.''

All cops are complicit.

I see that black cop protecting the Nazis in that video, I wonder how conflicted he felt inside while doing that or if he was just numbly thinking that as long as he was paid for it, it's alright.
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,913
They just abide the horrible cops which is the real issue. Being a "good" cop in a corrupt system that rewards the worst elements doesn't mean all that much.
This. Call me when there’s an actual schism in our country between cops who openly fight to better the system the work in and those sticking to the status quo. Otherwise I’m not sure why I should treat a good cop with anymore praise than a competent doctor.
 

Omegasquash

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,461
This is all right out of their playbook. Hide behind police protection to look like the oppressed instead of the wannabe oppressor WHILE THEY OPENLY STATE THAT THEY WANT TO FUCKING OPPRESS EVERYONE ELSE.

Nothing ever changes.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,266
Get out of here with this fuck ALL cops mentality. I have family members who are cops and they are good, hard working, family oriented people. Not all cops are total assholes, like many here on Era like to think.
No, fuck all cops.

They don't get the benefit of the doubt from me. The odd good one props up the bad apples and the entire corrupt system by toeing the thin blue line.
 

skillzilla81

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,221
This. Call me when there’s an actual schism in our country between cops who openly fight to better the system the work in and those sticking to the status quo. Otherwise I’m not sure why I should treat a good cop with anymore praise than a competent doctor.
Yeah, where are all these good cops when people are unjustly murdered. Where are all these good cops decrying the state of the nation when they have to go out and escort nazis instead of making sure their kind are afraid to come out? Where are all these good cops when a dude is legit murdered in his car minutes after being woke up with a cop already pointing a gun at him?

Where are all these good cops? Never hear anything from them. They all fall in line and protect themselves.
 

Dude Abides

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,682
I only know of the Federal law which is the one I quoted and bolded. The Patriot Act Public Law 107-56 which defines Domestic Terrorism as:

(5)  the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that--

(A)  involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)  appear to be intended--
(i)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
 to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;  or
(iii)  to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;  and
(C)  occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.



Not only do we see them on video with guns screaming white power attempting to intimidate civillians but the Police Chief also admitted that they had intel that this was planned to incite a riot. Seems open and shut.

Also to reiterate, this is the same law the FBI used to label Black Lives Matters as domestic terrorists in their 12 page report.
Yes, and I'm asking you how element (A) is met here. To meet this definition of domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act, there has to be a predicate independent criminal violation. That is what (A) means. You have to find some other federal or Michigan law that this violated in order to say this was domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,249
Fuck all cops.

Even the most family oriented, well intended and level-headed people in the police will have to follow order if said order is ''Protect those Nazis.''

All cops are complicit.
Not sure how many times it has to be said, they weren't protecting Nazi's, the Nazis were armed and wanting to attempt to goad people into violence against them, the police in this situation were isolating them and keep them separate from the festival and counter-protesters.

This is really not that difficult to grasp, but people are choosing to put their own spin on it.

Your alternative is is ignore the order and what, letting them roam free through the pride festival? Or detain them and get sued and handing hundreds of thousands to a bunch of nazis to further fund their genocidal ideology.

This is all right out of their playbook. Hide behind police protection to look like the oppressed instead of the wannabe oppressor WHILE THEY OPENLY STATE THAT THEY WANT TO FUCKING OPPRESS EVERYONE ELSE.

Nothing ever changes.
Actually no, they openly stated they didn't want police escort. They were armed, they wanted people to do something to them both from a legal perspective to sue and from a possible "self defense" stand your ground perspective. The police being there snuffed out their attempt to get people to attack them, which is what would have likely happened and it probably would have ended with blood on the streets and a CNN debate of why nazis had the right to kill people who were "threatening their life"

And again, obviously this situation would have been prevented if their permit was denied on legally defendable grounds. But my point is trying to show the perspective of the best outcomes given the fact they have a permit, and the best outcome is what happened.

Fascists were isolated from the festival at large.
Nobody died or was injured.
Fascists have no legal ground to sue the state/city/police to fund their extremism.

Their goals failed to come to fruition.
 

The Grizz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,409
I have cop family too. They don't/didn't stand up to shit cops. Fuck all cops.
I have a sister and brother-in-law in law enforcement. They started a long, looong time ago when times were much different. I can't even fathom how they would begin protesting this. It's a culture where you're told to fall in line and shut up. It's all sorts of fucked up.
 

Masseyme

Member
May 23, 2019
102
Yes, and I'm asking you how element (A) is met here. To meet this definition of domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act, there has to be a predicate independent criminal violation. That is what (A) means. You have to find some other federal or Michigan law that this violated in order to say this was domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act.
I would think the intent to incite a riot is a criminal violation of law...


To further my point here's an article making the argument that such acts would count under fed RICO law. I could probably find alot more.

 

Omegasquash

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,461
Actually no, they openly stated they didn't want police escort. They were armed, they wanted people to do something to them both from a legal perspective to sue and from a possible "self defense" stand your ground perspective. The police being there snuffed out their attempt to get people to attack them, which is what would have likely happened and it probably would have ended with blood on the streets and a CNN debate of why nazis had the right to kill people who were "threatening their life"

And again, obviously this situation would have been prevented if their permit was denied on legally defendable grounds. But my point is trying to show the perspective of the best outcomes given the fact they have a permit, and the best outcome is what happened.

Fascists were isolated from the festival at large.
Nobody died or was injured.
Fascists have no legal ground to sue the state/city/police to fund their extremism.

Their goals failed to come to fruition.
Ah, thank you. I had read their not "giving a damn about op-sec/antifa" as being "I don't care if police/antifa are out there", not as them saying they didn't want/expect police protection.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,249
I would think the intent to incite a riot is a criminal violation of law...
Goading other people to respond to you via violence isn't inciting a riot.

They have the legal right to express extreme hate (remember, hate speech isn't a legal thing in the US, only hate crimes) and say what they say, but people responding to their hate in a violent way doesn't mean the people speaking the hate are inciting a riot, the people responding to them are inciting a riot.


It's the same reason why the Westboro Baptist Church aren't arrested and charged with inciting violence when people start chucking brick at their busses or piss bottles at them in response to their hate filled speech.
 
Last edited:

Infcabbage

Member
Oct 28, 2017
437
Portland, Oregon
Pride should be a riot. The police and corporations are not our friends.

Get out of here with this fuck ALL cops mentality. I have family members who are cops and they are good, hard working, family oriented people. Not all cops are total assholes, like many here on Era like to think.
Sorry to break it to you, but your cop friends and relatives are just as terrible of people for being complicit in these systems. Maybe you should confront them about it.
 

Mikebison

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,135
Pride should be a riot. The police and corporations are not our friends.


Sorry to break it to you, but your cop friends and relatives are just as terrible of people for being complicit in these systems. Maybe you should confront them about it.
You literally don’t know this. At all.

What’s your proposal? Giving it the ‘fuck all cops, yes, even your family’ is big and hard on the internet, but in reality what do you propose? No police? Congratulations, the world became 1,000 times worse.
 

The Grizz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,409
Pride should be a riot. The police and corporations are not our friends.


Sorry to break it to you, but your cop friends and relatives are just as terrible of people for being complicit in these systems. Maybe you should confront them about it.
I'll be sure to bring it up during our next family get together. They already know that the rest of our family don't agree with their presidential candidate. We have mutually agreed to disagree on most of these types of topics.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,249
I'll be sure to bring it up during our next family get together. They already know that the rest of our family don't agree with their presidential candidate. We have mutually agreed to disagree on most of these types of topics.
ok, expressing "not all cops" and then saying the family members who are cops support Trump is probably the worst thing you could bring up rofl
 

Masseyme

Member
May 23, 2019
102
Goading other people to respond to you via violence isn't inciting a riot.

They have the legal right to express extreme hate (remember, hate speech isn't a legal thing in the US, only hate crimes) and say what they say, but people responding to their hate in a violent way doesn't mean the people speaking the hate are inciting a riot, the people responding to them are inciting a riot.


It's the same reason why the Westboro Baptist Church aren't arrested and charged with inciting violence when people start chucking brick at their busses or piss bottles at them.
No this isn't the same, The police knew before the demonstration started that the Nazi's were there to start a riot and intimidate. This is a hate crime.


Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or the laws of the U.S.


and possibly

Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 245

This statute makes it a crime to use, or threaten to use force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so.
 
Last edited:

skillzilla81

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,221
You literally don’t know this. At all.

What’s your proposal? Giving it the ‘fuck all cops, yes, even your family’ is big and hard on the internet, but in reality what do you propose? No police? Congratulations, the world became 1,000 times worse.
I mean, the system is working just as it's intended. Every time somebody asks WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Not much any oppressed group can do since nobody wants to listen to us and the people that are supposed to be protecting our best interests are too busy trying to kill us. Systemic systems or racism are so entrenched in our reality that people defend oppressed groups harassment and dying with, "It would be worse without cops."

So fuck all cops. Now, forever, and always.

Like, it's crazy a few people in here are saying the cops had no other recall than to do what they did. Imagine if this was any group of brown people with guns.

But, you know, can't make racists afraid to be racists. Gotta coddle white people in this country.
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,913
Yeah, where are all these good cops when people are unjustly murdered. Where are all these good cops decrying the state of the nation when they have to go out and escort nazis instead of making sure their kind are afraid to come out? Where are all these good cops when a dude is legit murdered in his car minutes after being woke up with a cop already pointing a gun at him?

Where are all these good cops? Never hear anything from them. They all fall in line and protect themselves.
And the excuse is always that that kind of action will put them or their job in danger from their slimy coworkers/bosses. And I have to wonder why that matters when the reason they're praised in the first place is to put themselves in danger to protect citizens. What exactly is the job? To protect and serve or to do as such only when those you're bringing justice against don't have a badge as well? Cops en masse should want to purge their ranks of the likes of Timothy Loehmann, Daniel Holtzclaw, etc. And yet we only hear about a handful who had to end up working alone against the system till they were squeezed out leaving only pieces of shit in uniform and the people willing to ignore, protect or enable them; that is if anyone speaks up to start with.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,249
No this isn't the same, The police knew before the demonstration started that the Nazi's were there to start a riot and intimidate. This is a hate crime.


Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or the laws of the U.S.


and possibly

Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 245[/TD]

This statute makes it a crime to use, or threaten to use force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so.
You're twisting the understanding and legal definitions.

The police knew their intentions were to cause people to respond to them violently which would have incited a riot against them

That is not inciting violence, nor is it inciting a riot, nor is it a hate crime.
 

Akira86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,190
I have cop family too. They don't/didn't stand up to shit cops. Fuck all cops.
same, sadly, its a goddamn brainwashing cult. The moment I find a cop that speaks up against other cops is the moment they have a follower and a friend, but I know like 5 people like that. Most of the time they speak to defend their fellow officers or speak on how the officer is put in a difficult position because their job is to enforce something they might not agree with, etc etc. It's always a catch-22 or some pre-supposed problem that cannot be changed, and we all have to suffer and endure as best we can. Armed Nazis are legal so the police have no choice, but somehow they always seem to be empowering or protecting the empowered.


ok, expressing "not all cops" and then saying the family members who are cops support Trump is probably the worst thing you could bring up rofl
what part of "good, family oriented people" did you not understand, lmao
 

Infcabbage

Member
Oct 28, 2017
437
Portland, Oregon
Pride parades/festivals are celebrations and expression of the right to exist equally. I would rather not have pride parades be fucking riots where normal people can't go out and have a good time celebrating with friends, families, their own children
It's only like this because we are allowed it. Throw a pride celebration any other time of the year and see how accepted it is. Pride has become nothing more than an advertising event in the same vein as the superbowl.
 

Orwell

Member
Jun 6, 2019
182
Get out of here with this fuck ALL cops mentality. I have family members who are cops and they are good, hard working, family oriented people. Not all cops are total assholes, like many here on Era like to think.
Yes, they are. Fuck all cops. They are the enemy. And I don't care how many of your loved ones are cops.

I have a sister and brother-in-law in law enforcement. They started a long, looong time ago when times were much different. I can't even fathom how they would begin protesting this. It's a culture where you're told to fall in line and shut up. It's all sorts of fucked up.
Different? Ever heard of Bull Connor? What he did, while presiding over the police in Alabama, was over half a century ago. With regards to its core purpose, which is to preserve white power and brutalize black bodies, nothing about law enforcement in this country has changed.
 
Last edited:

Infcabbage

Member
Oct 28, 2017
437
Portland, Oregon
You literally don’t know this. At all.

What’s your proposal? Giving it the ‘fuck all cops, yes, even your family’ is big and hard on the internet, but in reality what do you propose? No police? Congratulations, the world became 1,000 times worse.
When police as they are actually make the world worse as is and contribute to crime rates? Absolutely. You have to see the bigger picture.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,249
It's only like this because we are allowed it. Throw a pride celebration any other time of the year and see how accepted it is. Pride has become nothing more than an advertising event in the same vein as the superbowl.
Except for all the tens of thousands of people celebrating it that has nothing to do with corporations coopting it for their advertising.

Pride events were a thing before "pride month" become mainstream.
 

Masseyme

Member
May 23, 2019
102
You're twisting the understanding and legal definitions.

The police knew their intentions were to cause people to respond to them violently which would have incited a riot against them

That is not inciting violence, nor is it inciting a riot, nor is it a hate crime.

They are clearly there to intimidate. Intimidation is specifically listed in the hate crime statute I quoted.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,249
They are clearly there to intimidate. Intimidation is specifically listed in the hate crime statute I quoted.
Hate crimes are crimes.

You can't have a hate crime without a crime being committed. What you're describing is hate speech and completely missing the critical aspect, which is that there is a crime that is motivated by various prejudices.

Which, by the way, in Michigan isn't even a hate crime by your standards because sexual orientation isn't recognized as being a class that is protected under hate crimes.
 

Masseyme

Member
May 23, 2019
102
Hate crimes are crimes.

You can't have a hate crime without a crime being committed. What you're describing is hate speech and completely missing the critical aspect, which is that there is a crime that is motivated by various prejudices.
What part of "this statute makes it a crime to____" or "this statute makes it unlawful to" don't you understand?


And for shits and giggles I looked up the legal definition of riot.


As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons,which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any otherperson or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more personshaving, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b)
As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.



This is all blatantly clear.
 

The Grizz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,409
Yes, they are. Fuck all cops. They are the enemy. And I don't care how many of your loved ones are cops.
I think the root of the problem sits much further upstream than the cops. The biggest problem is the corruption at the federal government level, which trickles down to everything below it. I think if you get rid of Trump and corrupt politicians, better policies and practices might trickle down. Wishful thinking, I know.
 

Infcabbage

Member
Oct 28, 2017
437
Portland, Oregon
I'll be sure to bring it up during our next family get together. They already know that the rest of our family don't agree with their presidential candidate. We have mutually agreed to disagree on most of these types of topics.
That's good on you. You have to understand that this isn't a personal attack, we need to hold our loved ones especially accountable, because they're more likely to listen to those in their inner circle. I understand that being a cop is often a lot more nuanced than good/bad, but even the worst of the worst are still human beings who have family and people who love them and those they need to support. I in no way mean to make this comparison to those you know, but even the Nazi's were people with social lives who joked and shared culture and had families. The world doesn't have monsters, just other people.

The police, as a whole, are bad.
 

The Grizz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,409
That's good on you. You have to understand that this isn't a personal attack, we need to hold our loved ones especially accountable, because they're more likely to listen to those in their inner circle. I understand that being a cop is often a lot more nuanced than good/bad, but even the worst of the worst are still human beings who have family and people who love them and those they need to support. I in no way mean to make this comparison to those you know, but even the Nazi's were people with social lives who joked and shared culture and had families. The world doesn't have monsters, just other people.

The police, as a whole, are bad.
I appreciate your level-headed response as opposed to the blanket "fuck all cops" generic response that I'm seeing a lot of. There is nuance, I completely agree with that. We all, as a society, need to take a bigger stand to ensure this conversation never stops and action is taken. It's an uphill battle but change was never easy in any point in history.
I live in a culturally diverse area with many viewpoints and beliefs. I take a lot of this back home when I visit my family, who live in a small town with one way of thinking. It's EXTREMELY tough to break through to them. I'll keep trying and do everything in my power.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,249
What part of "this statute makes it a crime to____" don't you understand?


And for shits and giggles I looked up the legal definition of riot.


As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons,which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any otherperson or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more personshaving, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b)
As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.



This is all blatantly clear.
No, it's not blatantly clear, because your grasp on how the law functions is extremely flawed, and you're not even factoring the easily searchable fact that Michigan doesn't recognize sexual orientation being part of their hate crime laws. So even if the law is executed in the way you're writing (which it's not), it wouldn't even matter.

but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

That is the core part you're not grasping. It's literally legal to express that you think X group of people should die (and I'm not even sure that was expressed by this group, but that's not the point). The limit of that expression is when you are telling people to go commit that act of violence.


There is very clear precedent of what constitutes hate crimes and the cross over of when hate speech becomes unprotected.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[3] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]

The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg. The Supreme Court applied in the test in Brandenburg four years later in Hess v. Indiana[15].

Hate speech is extremely protected and it takes a lot of scrutiny to challenge it and limit it on a legal basis.
 

JKuch

Member
Oct 25, 2017
290
I'll be sure to bring it up during our next family get together. They already know that the rest of our family don't agree with their presidential candidate. We have mutually agreed to disagree on most of these types of topics.
"My Trump supporting cop family are great people!"
It's great that you're privileged enough to be able to agree to disagree with that kind of people in those kinds of topics.
Fuck all cops. ACAB.
 

Masseyme

Member
May 23, 2019
102
No, it's not blatantly clear, because you're grasp on how the law functions is extremely flawed, and you're not even factoring the easily searchable fact that Michigan doesn't recognize sexual orientation being part of their hate crime laws. So even if the law is executed in the way you're writing (which it's not), it wouldn't even matter.

but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

That is the core part you're not grasping. It's literally legal to express that you think X group of people should die (and I'm not even sure that was expressed by this group, but that's not the point). The limit of that expression is when you are telling people to go commit that act of violence.


There is very clear precedent of what constitutes hate crimes and the cross over of when hate speech becomes unprotected.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[3] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]

The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg. The Supreme Court applied in the test in Brandenburg four years later in Hess v. Indiana[15].

Hate speech is extremely protected and it takes a lot of scrutiny to challenge it and limit it on a legal basis.
This is federal law passed in 2009. Nothing you quoted here is relevant and this statute has never been invoked in a situation such as this.


For one the Nazis here moved far past speech or just advocacy into actual threats, intimidation and attempting to start a conflict. Threats and intimidation are specifically outlawed.

Again,

Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the Unites States or because of his or her having exercised such a right.

Unlike most conspiracy statutes, §241 does not require, as an element, the commission of an overt act.


The offense is always a felony, even if the underlying conduct would not, on its own, establish a felony violation of another criminal civil rights statute. It is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment unless the government proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death) in which case it may be punished by up to life imprisonment and, if death results, may be eligible for the death penalty.

Section 241 is used in Law Enforcement Misconduct and Hate Crime Prosecutions. It was historically used, before conspiracy-specific trafficking statutes were adopted, in Human Trafficking prosecutions.


Please key in on this part

Unlike most conspiracy statutes, §241 does not require, as an element, the commission of an overt act.



Again, it is a crime to intimidate and threaten an individual or group for any reason when they are exercising rights granted to them under the constitution. Period.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
7,249
This is federal law passed in 2009. Nothing you quoted here is relevant and this statute has never been invoked in a situation such as this.


For one the Nazis here moved far past speech or just advocacy into actual threats, intimidation and attempting to start a conflict. Threats and intimidation are specifically outlawed.

Again,





Please key in on this part

Unlike most conspiracy statutes, §241 does not require, as an element, the commission of an overt act.

If your interpretation of the law was legitimate it would drastically alter the way hate speech is enforced in ways that we haven't seen since the law your quoting has been passed (for very obvious reasons because your interpretation has no legal basis)

I've explained why your interpretation is flawed, I'm not interested in continuing this where I keep having to cite actual legal precedent that is one of the most fundamental pillars of litigating hate speech, which you're casually ignoring because it so clearly dismantles your interpretation of the legal enforcement of hate speech.

Intimidation has a specific usage under the law within the concept of hate crimes. It has no definition with hate speech, because there is no legal definition of hate speech.
 
Last edited:

stupei

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,640
Get out of here with this fuck ALL cops mentality. I have family members who are cops and they are good, hard working, family oriented people. Not all cops are total assholes, like many here on Era like to think.
When you really think about it, when Nazis march with guns out at a pride parade during the 50th anniversary of Stonewall, days before the anniversary of the Pulse shooting, the people who have it the worst are the police being insulted on a message board where none of them can see it. Gives me chills.
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,913
When you really think about it, when Nazis march with guns out at a pride parade during the 50th anniversary of Stonewall, days before the anniversary of the Pulse shooting, the people who have it the worst are the police being insulted on a message board where none of them can see it. Gives me chills.
Kinda reminds me of how some MRA types still get pissed off when women critique men. "Not all men", is a refrain that never seems to die.
 

Masseyme

Member
May 23, 2019
102
If your interpretation of the law was legitimate it would drastically alter the way hate speech is enforced in ways that we haven't seen since the law your quoting has been passed (for very obvious reasons because your interpretation has no legal basis)

I've explained why your interpretation is flawed, I'm not interested in continuing this where I keep having to cite actual legal precedent that is one of the most fundamental pillars of litigating hate speech, which you're casually ignoring because it so clearly dismantles your interpretation of the legal enforcement of hate speech.

Intimidation has a specific usage under the law within the concept of hate crimes. It has no definition with hate speech, because there is no legal definition of hate speech.

Its not hate speech. I sure that you probably have some weird dream of litigating the Nazi's defense based on your insistence to frame it as simply hate speech and thus protected by that precedent but its not and I'd spend every dollar I had to fight that. The precedent you quoted is specifically referring to an actual speech at a Klan Rally, it has no bearing here.

The moment you put a gun in your hand and approach someone with it brandished and intending to use it is the moment it stops being just hate speech.