It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Let's imagine for a moment what happened to people that protested the Nazis. If only more had... Why did they wait so long?
What are these kids protesting Redneck?
Brownshirts used physical violence and terror to break up meetings of political opponents and suppress opposition.
Meetings of the Peace Society were frequently broken up by Brownshirts.
They would invade meetings, interrupt the speaker, attempt to physically attack him, and make enough disturbance so that meetings would be forced to cancel.
Brownshirts organized to disrupt and “shut down” the political meetings of all non-Nazi groups.
Tactics included interrupting, making noise, and unnerving the speaker. All for the purpose of silencing opposing political views.
During elections, Brownshirts would send speakers to physically take over meetings of other political parties.
After taking over, they would forcibly exclude anyone not in sympathy with their views.
Brownshirts would even incite riots to shut down meetings of political opponents.
The Brownshirts were successful in obtaining “mastery of the streets” and shutting down all dissenting voices. Their efforts helped grind the existing government to a halt, and destabilized Germany into a state of crisis.
Hitler used this crisis to argue that he was the only one who could restore order to the country.
The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order. Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment
When I said (earlier in the thread) that sometimes the illegal thing is the moral thing? This is what I'm talking about. Riots in the freaking streets if necessary
If - necessary. It's not necessary. Yet
Not for freaking Ann Coulter or Milo or any of these bellyaching attention seeking yahoos. But, I am older - and have some perspective
The very tactics being used by these leftists students are the tactics Hitler used with his bronwshirts to help rise rto power.
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CynConcepts
Why not? You have been participating in this thread and it was frustrating that you were not seemingly being honest or actually have not really considered your own truth to share.
I was never dishonest. You can read back through my posts and decide for yourself
...it is simply rude.
That's how I see it
Peaceful protesting is standing outside a venue and not deterring others, but allowing them to read your concerns on a sign or your voice of discernation thus allowing another to consider your point on their own.
You don't cram your personal opinion nor block another from being able to self-determine their own opinion by hearing both sides of a debate. That is fascism not protesting.
Pretty much what I've been saying. With the exception of potential extenuating circumstances
Fear of fascism kinda creates it's own momentum :-)
originally posted by: visitedbythem
Obviously. the far left Marxist Progressive Communistas can not win on a level playing field. This could be devastating for them. Prepare for violence, death threats, and civil disobediance
originally posted by: DAVID64
Cue the Liberal whining about hate speech Right Wing Fascist homophobic White Male something something something...
For folks who worry so much about Fascists, they sure do their best to limit Free Speech ...and any other Rights they think you shouldn't have.
Because, like conservative speakers today, they were threatened by the Nazis because the Nazis didn't like what they said.
...but like so many today, you don't want to admit it. You want to decide for yourself when rioting is necessary, and damn what anyone else says. You're not fooling anyone.
Thank you for responding. Obviously, I was not alone in my confusion in your responses, so looking back at prior posts would not be helpful. My past curiosity is appeased at you admitting that hecklers are simply rude.
You have awakened my curiosity again though...what exception of potential extenuating circumstances...for you (hypothetically, of course)...would be okay to silence or override another's freedom of speech?
Maybe you don't like what the protesters are saying?
They aren't protesting free speech - they're protesting the speakers.
Seems to me that you're the one that wants to determine when rioting is necessary
So, you like Coulter - Milo? Fine - support them. I do not
I have said all along that they deserve to speak. I also said that protesting these guys isn't worth it
When I entered this thread I was supporting free speech - for everyone.