Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: toms54

You should be arrested for acts of violence against another individual(s) regardless if you're wearing a mask or not.

Just wearing a mask should not be a reason for arrest.

I lean towards this too for a number of reasons.

Political protest used to be suppressed by the police. Nowadays it's more likely to be through by-laws, public order legislation and private insurance. The lawyers will do what tear gas and batons couldn't do.

If you read far enough to get to that post, you must realize the bill isn't about "Just wearing a mask." It's to get people doing Antifa stuff while hiding their identity. So they won't get arrested and face laws and lawyers. It is designed as civil rights legislation much like the anti-KKK laws from the 60's.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: toms54

Pipe Hitter Union sometimes wear masks, so I can't totally support this law.

OK

a reply to: Chadwickus

And not to imply at all anyone else is, but I am not a hypocrite, so I am perfectly fine with both sides getting this punishment.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Feelings don't count. Are they actively preventing you from exercising your rights?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Feelings don't count. Are they actively preventing you from exercising your rights?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Plus, they aren't really as effective as they think they are. It's fairly easy to dispatch an antifa.

Unless they hit you with a brick from behind, like what happened to me. Took a divit out of my skull. Usually I can smell them before I see them.

Point is, this law is only adding to the hysteria on all sides. Yeah, they can be dangerous, but I've seen first hand how the police in some cities just literally look the other way. Lots of communists in local governments. Make the cops do their job, or let the tough guys take them down like we've been seeing.

If they know they're gonna get crushed they'll start to give up eventually. These are not tough people.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How do you define mask? How do you define disguise? How do you define intimidation? How do you define threatening?

This law doesn't define any of the terms. So what stops this law from being used for nefarious purposes?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Without having read the bill I can say I support the SPIRIT of the bill. It's possible the wording needs tweaking.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

That's my point to a T.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Well, no, but the dog whistle sure sounds nice to the herd doesn't it?

It was our recent exchanges that made certain "Antifa" isnt a real thing beyond a 'mask' that any and every disgruntled leftist out there can pull over their cause to go out and do "Black Bloc" BS (rioting basically) on the streets.

And when pressed for an 'proper' Antifa site to check out their manifesto, the site you linked said almost nothing about a government system run amok, and instead was all about attacking racists and other perceived bigot types. It even bragged about bringing "SHARP's" to its ranks (SHARP's = left wing converted violent skinheads).

So put those two together and its a mask disgruntled leftists can pull on to go and attack 'bigots' (other citizens they dont like their politics).

Of course it all follows the logic of the only 'racism' is anti-non-white racism, as the ideology the Antifa site expressed was pure identity based BS (a different flavor of racial obsessionism).

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Threatened and intimidated are feelings.

What if I go on a more aggressively Right-leaning site like r/The_Donald? If I get banned by an anonymous user for expressing a counter-viewpoint aren't they suppressing my rights hiding behind a disguise?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Actually it's not. If I point a gun at you how you feel about it doesn't matter. If the wording needs tweaking let's tweak it. You should not be able to hide behind a mask and feel secure in removing the rights of others.

Websites are not public and usually there is no inherent right to be there.

That wording is way too vague.

We already have laws in place. This is the first step in stopping any kind of protest or anonymous action. We're becoming more like Soviet Era Russia all the time. This is the opposite of freedom. I thought we lived in America?

a reply to: amazing

How is stopping someone from denying someone else the right of protest denying protest? It's actually allowing protest.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: amazing

How is denying someone else the right of protest denying protest?

This act sows the first seeds to denying everyone the right to protest. It's kind of how the gun folks see any gun control law, even making fun of those pushing it forward. They say give the government an inch and they'll take a foot and then a mile. It's the same with our rights to speech and protest. These should be fundamentally protected not eroded.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Websites are more public than a public area. By law a pedophile is barred from stepping foot anywhere near school property.

There's nothing that prohibits them from visiting a school website.

originally posted by: amazing
That wording is way too vague.

We already have laws in place. This is the first step in stopping any kind of protest or anonymous action. We're becoming more like Soviet Era Russia all the time. This is the opposite of freedom. I thought we lived in America?

originally posted by: amazing
This act sows the first seeds to denying everyone the right to protest. It's kind of how the gun folks see any gun control law, even making fun of those pushing it forward. They say give the government an inch and they'll take a foot and then a mile. It's the same with our rights to speech and protest. These should be fundamentally protected not eroded.

a reply to: toms54

The thing is, there is NO SUCH THING AS "ANTIFA STUFF

Goddamn people, Antifa is a name only.

Now the state and governments are trying to gain the power to decide on "who" is "Antifa" what if it was a journalist, or a "legal observer" that was wearing a Gasmask, or a bandana around their mouth, the state wants the power to decide they are "Antifa"

what about people who show up who don't identify as Antifa, you are advocating giving the state even more power, more authority all while yelling about "smaller government"

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

If that picture was of Liberals, and or Rightists I could agree, but you see how you are wrong if that is a socialist, communists, anarchists. considering they all advocate the abolishment of government

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Socialist / Communist CANT work without government ENFORCEMENT. Unless you have an example of it nobody has heard about?

And anarchist is the one I've ever seen have any true 'officialiness' assertion against having a government.

Maybe quit being a chicken and do a thread OP that explains the difference between the three. That goes for anyone reading this that supports any or all of those idealisms.