The limits of free speech

[Marblehead]

7 minutes ago, Hancock said:

ow, I never got into the know how of music industry politics, though I aS offered a job at a studio because the guy liked my personality an said I reminded him of himseLf when he was younger. I explained to him that i had ear trauma an turned down his offer. Good times. Generally for me if i just like a song  then i kinda explore it.

That artist's Toby Keith, has done work with Willy Nelson.

 

Since you haven't been into country music in a while, here's another good one to me. For me that song has the meaning of life in it. When it says, "If you're doing what you're able, that's something to be proud of."

 

His name didn't even ring a bell in my mind.

 

Yes, that is a good song however, in my mind it really isn't even Country but more at Modern Folk, something a group like The Eagles should have done.  Or maybe even Alternative Country.

 

Too bad you weren't able to get involved in the industry.  It seems that you really enjoy music.

 

(This morning I switched to my Psychedelic music collection.  Artists playing right now is Blue Cheer.)

 

[Hancock]

23 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

His name didn't even ring a bell in my mind.

 

Yes, that is a good song however, in my mind it really isn't even Country but more at Modern Folk, something a group like The Eagles should have done.  Or maybe even Alternative Country.

 

Too bad you weren't able to get involved in the industry.  It seems that you really enjoy music.

 

(This morning I switched to my Psychedelic music collection.  Artists playing right now is Blue Cheer.)

 

I looked up Blue Cheer, got to be honest, I'm not a fan so far. The heavy music kind of gives me headaches. Even though I like Van Halen i can't sit thru too much without a headache. But yeah it is interesting.

 

Yea it was disappointing a bit to me too but I've got trouble in an ear so I don't hear that well out of it. It wasn't my fate.

 

The Eagles are great

 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Hancock

[Wu Ming Jen]

One way of silencing hate groups is to stop talking about them.

 

 

[Hancock]

Here's that Blur Cheer, @Marblehead

 

[Brian]

8 hours ago, Aetherous said:

Should Antifa have free speech, let's say if they organized a rally and had a leader speak, where they primarily called out for violence against police, but didn't provide a specific time in which to commit the violence?

It hinges on the the language and situation of the specific speech -- if the particular communication is intended to create a clear and present danger of unlawful conduct AND it seems likely to be successful in achieving that goal then the speech itself is unlawful.

[Brian]

Same principles apply when, for instance, BLM protestors chant "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" or "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!"

[Aetherous]

9 minutes ago, Brian said:

Same principles apply when, for instance, BLM protestors chant "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" or "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!"

 

If they left out the "now" part, there would be no problem, because of Brandenburg v Ohio. There probably isn't even a problem here because of them just chanting something and not actually being on their way to do it.

[Hancock]

16 minutes ago, Brian said:

Same principles apply when, for instance, BLM protestors chant "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" or "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!"

That's not the official stance of the BLM, youre misrepresenting that group purposely. Please do not do that, as it spreads hate and negativity.

 

The way you keep trying to blame the protesters kinda sounds like Trump when he didn't call out the white supremacist but instead said it was wrong on both sides.

 

 

[Brian]

5 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

If they left out the "now" part, there would be no problem, because of Brandenburg v Ohio. There probably isn't even a problem here because of them just chanting something and not actually being on their way to do it.

The question of imminence is a judgement call, as is the question of likelihood of producing action.  Is it possible to couch language in such a way as to instill a sense of urgency or immediacy without literally specifying a timeframe for action?  I would suggest that it is, and that the situation has to be evaluated either as it happens or after the fact in order to have a reasonable perspective on both parts of the test.

[Hancock]

4 minutes ago, Brian said:

The question of imminence is a judgement call, as is the question of likelihood of producing action.  Is it possible to couch language in such a way as to instill a sense of urgency or immediacy without literally specifying a timeframe for action?  I would suggest that it is, and that the situation has to be evaluated either as it happens or after the fact in order to have a reasonable perspective on both parts of the test.

Aye, you called me out for dodging your post now you dodge one directed to you. Lol well at least you quit trying to fight me on stuff. 

 

 

glad we've moved on. I enjoy reading the conversations y'all have when there's no sniping. 

[Brian]

7 minutes ago, Hancock said:

That's not the official stance of the BLM, youre misrepresenting that group purposely. Please do not do that, as it spreads hate and negativity.

 

The way you keep trying to blame the protesters kinda sounds like Trump when he didn't call out the white supremacist but instead said it was wrong on both sides.

 

 

It was wrong on both sides, Hancock.  Attacking people in the streets is wrong, even if you don't like what they are saying.  It is not only wrong but it is illegal.

 

If we look at the official stance of the KKK, will we see a call for Lynching?  Well, here it is: https://kkk.bz/platform-2/

 

How about the American Nazi Party? Do they officially call for violence against Jews or non-Aryans?  Again, here's their official platform: http://www.americannaziparty.com/platform/index.php

 

Seriously, take a few minutes to read those two platforms.  You and I agree that they are twisted and hate-filled but they don't see it that way -- in fact, they see themselves a social justice warriors!

 

Do I believe they just want to make the world a better place?  Nope!  Do they believe they just want to make the world a better place?  I suspect they do.

[Brian]

1 minute ago, Hancock said:

Aye, you called me out for dodging your post now you dodge one directed to you. Lol well at least you quit trying to fight me on stuff. 

 

 

glad we've moved on. I enjoy reading the conversations y'all have when there's no sniping. 

What is it you imagine I dodged, Hancock?  I'll gladly readdress whatever it was with more clarity.

[Hancock]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

It was wrong on both sides, Hancock.  Attacking people in the streets is wrong, even if you don't like what they are saying.  It is not only wrong but it is illegal.

 

If we look at the official stance of the KKK, will we see a call for Lynching?  Well, here it is: https://kkk.bz/platform-2/

 

How about the American Nazi Party? Do they officially call for violence against Jews or non-Aryans?  Again, here's their official platform: http://www.americannaziparty.com/platform/index.php

 

Seriously, take a few minutes to read those two platforms.  You and I agree that they are twisted and hate-filled but they don't see it that way -- in fact, they see themselves a social justice warriors!

 

Do I believe they just want to make the world a better place?  Nope!  Do they believe they just want to make the world a better place?  I suspect they do.

Your standing up for the kkk. I can no longer tolerate further conversing this with you. It messes with my Zen thing man. I'm out.

[Brian]

14 minutes ago, Hancock said:

Your standing up for the kkk. I can no longer tolerate further conversing this with you. It messes with my Zen thing man. I'm out.

No, I clearly did NOT stand up for the KKK.  I actually described them as "twisted and hate-filled."

 

There's a reason, though, why the First Amendment doesn't read:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances -- unless someone finds your beliefs offensive."

 

You may recall, however, that I have repeatedly said I don't think you are in a frame of mind which allows you to have this conversation.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Brian

[Aetherous]

24 minutes ago, Brian said:

The question of imminence is a judgement call, as is the question of likelihood of producing action.  Is it possible to couch language in such a way as to instill a sense of urgency or immediacy without literally specifying a timeframe for action?  I would suggest that it is, and that the situation has to be evaluated either as it happens or after the fact in order to have a reasonable perspective on both parts of the test.

 

So, when we look back at Charlottesville, and see the leaked chat logs prior to the event in which they discussed the legality of mowing down counterprotesters in the street...

 

And also discussing making deliberate choices to elicit violence from counterprotesters.

And look in retrospect at what actually happened, with the murder of a girl and the injury of 18 others...
 

I think we can say that the organizers (all members in the chat logs) of the rally pass the Brandenburg test for not having protected speech, perhaps for future events.

At the minimum, it's clear that the group wasn't intending to peaceably assemble. If only we had known prior to it happening.

[Brian]

4 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

So, when we look back at Charlottesville, and see the leaked chat logs prior to the event in which they discussed the legality of mowing down counterprotesters in the street...

 

And also discussing making deliberate choices to elicit violence from counterprotesters.

And look in retrospect at what actually happened, with the murder of a girl and the injury of 18 others...
 

I think we can say that the organizers (all members in the chat logs) of the rally pass the Brandenburg test for not having protected speech, perhaps for future events.

At the minimum, it's clear that the group wasn't intending to peaceably assemble. If only we had known prior to it happening.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime.

 

EDIT: I added an additional comment but then noticed Aetherous had clicked the "Thank you" button so I am moving that comment to its own post.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Brian

[Brian]

That said^^^, discussing the legality of an action isn't exactly the same as planning to commit it.

[Aetherous]

Just now, Brian said:

That said^^^, discussing the legality of an action isn't exactly the same as planning to commit it.

 

True...although unfortunate for them that a member of their group did commit the crime they were discussing.

[windwalker]

What ever one thinks of him. he does have some interesting things to say

Covers free speech, and the media's effects on it.  

 

 

 

[Brian]

Just now, Aetherous said:

 

True...although unfortunate for them that a member of their group did commit the crime they were discussing.

It appears that way, although the courts will ultimately make that determination.  If it turns out this guy was incited by speeches at the rally or by online discussions beforehand, then I suspect a good case can be built to charge those responsible for inciting that action.  There may also be a possibility to charge for inciting a riot.

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Hancock said:

I looked up Blue Cheer, got to be honest, I'm not a fan so far. The heavy music kind of gives me headaches. Even though I like Van Halen i can't sit thru too much without a headache. But yeah it is interesting.

 

 

Yeah, pretty much, if you weren't living it Psychedelic music isn't all that attractive to new listeners or young people of any persuasion.

 

 

BTW  We did a really great job at taking this thread off topic.  We deserve honorable mention by one of the Mods.

 

[Marblehead]

Damn!  And then the very next post took us back to topic again.  I guess more needed to be said about it.

 

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Hancock said:

That's not the official stance of the BLM, youre misrepresenting that group purposely. Please do not do that, as it spreads hate and negativity.

 

The way you keep trying to blame the protesters kinda sounds like Trump when he didn't call out the white supremacist but instead said it was wrong on both sides.

 

So what was Trump supposed to do?  Judge the individual before he had a fair court hearing like Obama did?  That would be bigotry.

 

[Hancock]

6 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

So what was Trump supposed to do?  Judge the individual before he had a fair court hearing like Obama did?  That would be bigotry.

 

 

Obama gets hated on but he restabilized the country, economically helping us rebalance, job rate went up, everything got better for Americans. The years prior only saw decline in our economic system an our job rate, as well as our lives as a whole in this country. Our reputation was shitty til he stepped in an used his charisma to smooth things out, an took us out of stuff that other recent presidents overstepped like the "war on terror" situation. 

 

Dude there's no proof that Obama did anything wrong. His agendas were aimed at fixing a mess presidents before him passed Down.

 

Now we have Trump, the worst side of everything an American is. Privileged, racist, fraud, liar, cheat, prejudice, sexist, egotistical an open about it. He hurts our credibility and puts us all in danger with his ignorance . Look at the recent North Korean incident, he handled it by trying to show off an threaten in an openly underhanded way. You downtimes with an unstable guy who has nukes, it being for a reason to show his power to the world like the NKorean tyrant. Trump messed with guys like Putin, an is just trying to show off but comes out like a jackass with no diplomatic skill whatsoever.

 

Defend his dumbassery and ruining of our national credibility if you like, but Trump is shown himself incompetent so far.

 

An to not dodge your question, there's plenty of ways he could've handled it better. But if your using Obama as a mirror, I think he would've sympathized with the victims on both sides an instead of addressing the group's identities he would've shamed their behaviour an ask it not be repeated, probably reinforce the idea of peaceful protesting. Even calling for restraint when attacked as a show of character to those who would harm.

 

 

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, Hancock said:

Dude there's no proof ...

 

I won't get into this with you but wanted to let you know that I read it.  We just made peace a few hours ago and I don't want to break that.

 

We have different opinions.  That's fine.