-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Armed Neo-Nazis Crash Detroit Pride with Police Escort (see staff post)
- Thread starter Kinsei
- Start date
I always thought the ACAB was more about the organization than the actual cops.
Oh fuck off, you're out of your depth and you try to frame the point that it's extremely difficult to litigate hate speech in America as "defending Nazis" as some last ditch attempt to come out on top?
Tell me why there aren't a swarm of lawyers working pro-bono to sue the fuck out of groups that do exactly what you just described? Oh, because that's not how hate crimes work.
You so clearly don't understand how hate laws in America function or are litigated. There is a reason nobody has been using your personal interpretation of the laws, because your personal interpretations don't exist. You think you've somehow managed to find a magic bullet to put away fascists and white supremacists?
Shit, you better get on the phone and start calling every single legal scholar in America, because you just radically altered the core understanding and processes of litigating situations where hate groups like this make public protests.
You have zero clue what you're talking about, you don't understand how the law functions, how it's been applied in the past, and how it's being applied now based on the legal precedent that has been defined from SCOTUS cases.
The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech
Any time there is what we consider to be "hate speech", this test is used to determine if the speech becomes punishable and not covered under the 1st amendment.
That precedent that you think doesn't apply here is used in every single situation in America where there is a legal argument trying to determine if hate speech is protected or not. Every. Single. Case. And you think it doesn't apply because of your own personal legal definitions that nobody uses?
Trying to deal with Nazi's and fascists in America is fucking hard because they literally have the legal right to spew their genocidal insanity.
You think because I'm making this critical point I'm "defending them"?
Oh fuck off, you're out of your depth and you try to frame the point that it's extremely difficult to litigate hate speech in America as "defending Nazis" as some last ditch attempt to come out on top?
Tell me why there aren't a swarm of lawyers working pro-bono to sue the fuck out of groups that do exactly what you just described? Oh, because that's not how hate crimes work.
You so clearly don't understand how hate laws in America function or are litigated. There is a reason nobody has been using your personal interpretation of the laws, because your personal interpretations don't exist. You think you've somehow managed to find a magic bullet to put away fascists and white supremacists?
Shit, you better get on the phone and start calling every single legal scholar in America, because you just radically altered the core understanding and processes of litigating situations where hate groups like this make public protests.
You have zero clue what you're talking about, you don't understand how the law functions, how it's been applied in the past, and how it's being applied now based on the legal precedent that has been defined from SCOTUS cases.
The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech
Any time there is what we consider to be "hate speech", this test is used to determine if the speech becomes punishable and not covered under the 1st amendment.
That precedent that you think doesn't apply here is used in every single situation in America where there is a legal argument trying to determine if hate speech is protected or not. Every. Single. Case. And you think it doesn't apply because of your own personal legal definitions that nobody uses?
Eh you fuck off. You haven't provided a single relevant precedent concerning :
A) An incident like this where white supremacists mobilized with weapons with the known intention to use them on peaceful civillians
2) Any relevant case what so ever invoking the 2009 USC 18 § 241 or
3)Any case where the known intent and action of mobilizing with weapons to threaten and intimidate was simply classified as hate speech.
Until you do, you fuck off. I would fight your shitty ass rudimentary ass "but its hate speech!!" argument any day of the fucking week. Its not just hate speech. Its criminal activity that Congress explicitly prohibited in the US Code.
I hate to nitpick terminology but each time these things happen people keep spreading misleading terms and info.
They are not Nazis, they are not "National Socialists"- they are fascists. Fascism comes in many flavors depending on where it crops up and the circumstances. The Nazi party was how it manifested in 1930's/40's Germany. Fascism is manifesting in the US but that doesn't automatially = Nazis. If they were campaigning to elect Hitler and get Jews out of Germany, THEN you could call them Nazi's but they would also be time travelers from Germany that wound up in America and don't realize it's 2019.
The word "socialists" was used to help SELL fascism to the German people. It's simply a name slapped in to make it sound acceptable. Same as we are saying that using "alt-right" is softening what they really are, "National Socialist" is the same thing, just not quite as soft. So if we are going to "call them what they really are" then we call them fascists.
Three Arrows has some great videos outlining all of this.
They are not Nazis, they are not "National Socialists"- they are fascists. Fascism comes in many flavors depending on where it crops up and the circumstances. The Nazi party was how it manifested in 1930's/40's Germany. Fascism is manifesting in the US but that doesn't automatially = Nazis. If they were campaigning to elect Hitler and get Jews out of Germany, THEN you could call them Nazi's but they would also be time travelers from Germany that wound up in America and don't realize it's 2019.
The word "socialists" was used to help SELL fascism to the German people. It's simply a name slapped in to make it sound acceptable. Same as we are saying that using "alt-right" is softening what they really are, "National Socialist" is the same thing, just not quite as soft. So if we are going to "call them what they really are" then we call them fascists.
Three Arrows has some great videos outlining all of this.
I fail to see how ridding Washington of Trump will correct the widespread infestation of white supremacists in local police forces. What legislative remedy is there to stop a Nazi from joining the police force, killing an unarmed black person, and escaping punishment because of media propaganda that sympathizes with the Nazi and assassinates the character of the deceased; a prosecutor that declines to bring charges or overcharges if they do; and a jury of peers comprised of racists who side with the cop if he's brought to trial.
Right? Trump didn't exist in Antebellum. Trump wasn't president during the Million Man March. And Trump wasn't making legislation back when Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin were killed. Trump is a symptom of much bigger problems. Of course him and his ilk need to never have a job with more responsibility than a sanitation worker but just as at fault and just as necessary to challenge are the people in our day to day who outright oppress minorities or naively ignore/are apathetic to our plight as disenfranchised people. Trump wouldn't be in power if people's regressive, unempathetic family members weren't treated with kid gloves because it's those family members who vote in bigots, and throw away resumes with "ghetto" names, or preach about how sinful abortion is on Sundays, or police neighborhoods they think are populated with "animals". Trump wouldn't be in power if there weren't people to give him that power. People love the "Racism will die when all the old people do" fallacy and too many who spew it use it as an internal justification for their own laziness in doing the critical individual work right now to actually help create a progressive society.
Last edited:
Well said. Trump's a reliable bogeyman to which we can avert our attention from the real issue.