Boston Free Speech Rally: What The News did NOT Cover

a reply to: introvert

Eh, yeah...that's why we have the first amendment; to place into Constitutional law that the govt must protect it's citizens right to free speech.

Free speech is an innate right by birth, the first is an obligation to the state to protect that right.

Read the paragraph you just quoted again, I think you may be missing the point.

a reply to: Grambler

Heck, the protest was against a free speech rally.

I think the protest was about hatred and racism in general. Not against free speech.

Can we both agree though that using violence to silence someone is inhibiting their free speech?

Sure.

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: introvert

Eh, yeah...that's why we have the first amendment; to place into Constitutional law that the govt must protect it's citizens right to free speech.

Free speech is an innate right by birth, the first is an obligation to the state to protect that right.

Read the paragraph you just quoted again, I think you may be missing the point.

Perhaps you should go back and read what I said. I was correct in my assertion.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: introvert

Eh, yeah...that's why we have the first amendment; to place into Constitutional law that the govt must protect it's citizens right to free speech.

Free speech is an innate right by birth, the first is an obligation to the state to protect that right.

Read the paragraph you just quoted again, I think you may be missing the point.

Perhaps you should go back and ready what I said. I was correct in my assertion.

I just did, then gave my counterpoint. .I.e-Your turn

originally posted by: essentialtremors

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: introvert

Eh, yeah...that's why we have the first amendment; to place into Constitutional law that the govt must protect it's citizens right to free speech.

Free speech is an innate right by birth, the first is an obligation to the state to protect that right.

Read the paragraph you just quoted again, I think you may be missing the point.

Perhaps you should go back and ready what I said. I was correct in my assertion.

I just did, then gave my counterpoint. .I.e-Your turn

A counter-point to something I did not even address or assert. I did not say free speech was not a right granted at birth.

the first is an obligation to the state to protect that right.

I actually said that here:

It is the government's responsibility to ensure the mob does not act upon those speaking -out.

Again, re-read the posts. You are debating over things we agree on.

originally posted by: RespectfullyDisagree
a reply to: eNumbra

I would argue that it's definitely not when your feelings are hurt by something somebody said.

"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."

-Karl Popper

I would venture to guess that most of the American public doesnt support white supremacist or Nazi beliefs so I think we're okay on that front.

While the true numbers of Nazi/Neo-Nazi/Associated Naziesque organizations represent anything but a large power block, I see a lot of people who are very dismissive of them, which I feel to be a bit naive, I know the majority of those people aren't in any way supportive of those nazis, but the way to prevent a mindset like those from reaching power again is vigilance and resistance.

Violence in the streets may not be the answer, but the waving of hands while stating that everything's fine isn't either; these groups do exist and have experienced at least some small surge in recent years.

I'd also argue, and others would too, that Nazism and by extension Supremacy ideologies isn't just an offensive opinion; Nazism at least is an ideology of hate, domination, and the destruction of people not fitting within a certain ethnic/racial standard. Nazism, by that very definition and as evidenced by its history poses an actual measurable threat to people.

And because I'm sure someone will pop in with some "what-abouts", no communism isn't terribly different in that regard.

For the record I don't support violent disruption of hate rallies, the more we let them expose themselves the more we know about who they are.

a reply to: mobiusmale

I"m sorry but that whole thing looks very staged to me. What people I saw in that gazebo, The signs seemed to be stock signs and the few people looked wholesome. The fellow giving the speech from his note pad wore a suit while those around him all gave the appearance of normal everyday people. All the while the ''hordes of leftist totalitarians'' rail at the gate. Nope, that video was just to Pollyanna for me to believe. Too much ''us the good guys, them the bad guys'' about the whole thing.

What kind of rally for free speech depends on something as simple as a little bullhorn for amplification, where the speaker has to read his talking points from a note pad.

What kind of rally for free speech only draws a dozen or so supporters who all fit within the gazebo?

What kind of rally advertises enough ahead of time to bring thousands of counter protesters while only a few are there for the rally itself.

Look at the signs. All look to be made in the exact same manner. Each one is calling to a different area of concern and none of them hateful.

Here is what kind of rally. One that is a set up. One that is designed specifically for the type of propaganda this one offers. I know of activist churches that thrill to this kind of thing. Drag out a couple dozen of their members to create a media buzz that serve their own purposes.

No, this ''rally'' was a staged event.

a reply to: mobiusmale

mobiusmale,

You are a terrible liar.

There IS no left in American politics. You have center, center right, right and far right. And before you give me a bunch of nonsense about how America works differently, or some other exceptionalist nonsense, understand the following:

You do not get to decide what left and right mean. America does not get to decide what those things mean, and America does not get to decide that they mean something different within its borders. Left and right mean what I say they mean, not what you THINK they do, and they will not change meanings, just because someone happens to have had the misfortune to end up in the Tangerine Reich you happen to live in.

a reply to: eNumbra

That isn't quite the case. Hate speech legislation was useless, if not contributing to the worst crimes of mankind, in the one instance when there was real justification for it.

Up until the Enabling Act of 1933, the Weimar Republic had the most progressive hate speech laws in the history of the world, not unlike the hate speech laws found in many societies today. With strict ordinance against incitement to class struggle (Weimar criminal code 130), or against religious insult (Weimar criminal code 166), the Nazis were jailed on numerous occasions in the years leading up to their petty revolution. Der Stürmer, the anti-Semitic rag of Julius Streicher, whom was later hung in Nuremberg for “inciting hatred”, was either confiscated or taken to court on no less than 36 separate occasions in the decade leading up to 1933. The paper was even the subject of five litigations over the course of 11 days in the late twenties. How then, despite the legislation, the censorship, and their persecution, did the Nazis rise to power?

a reply to: introvert

I gotya.

I hadn't read that post yet when I replied to your previous post.

Ya know what folks.

Change the names and the outcomes the same.

Imagine the Tories/Loyalists running around colonial American calling the their 'enemy' racists and what not.

Criticizing the crown would have been considered to be 'hate' speech.

This people was the specific reason for the writing of the amendment.

To protect speech people disagreed with.

What is currently going on is unacceptable.

The mini Hitlers.

The mini Maos.

Need to lay the hell off.

Holy God, I just read through that after your post. They are justifying attacking an old woman with a flag.

And, this gem:

" Boston Antifa‏ @AntifaBoston Aug 19

No room for capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, "classical liberals" or supporters of the US constitution in our city. #BostonResist
580 replies 436 retweets 310 likes
"

I didn't realize how self-identified as revolutionary anarcho-communists Antifa was until reading all this.

I'm liberal. But these "F#ck your free speech" signs of theirs are worrisome.

I thought one element of fascism was suppressing free speech?


a reply to: seeker1963

I agree with you, and have stated the same on ATS multiple times. For example, the Democrats are at best center, on a global scale more likely center right due to economic policies and such.

However, there is a small real left as defined globally here.

The Antifa Boston group states that it is anarcho-communist and a revolutionary movement.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I agree that the government here wasn't violating that right.

What is worrisome, however, is the media's seeming attempts to conflate free speech and the rally with nazism and white nationalism. It seems manipulative and agenda-driven.
a reply to: eNumbra

originally posted by: TheTory
I like how people throwing urine and rocks at police are considered protesters, and those talking about free speech are Nazis. The mayor or police chief had to pat everyone on the back how they "stood up to hate" while in the same breath chastising them for throwing urine water balloons at police and rally goers. We are reaching peak double think.

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^