The Maelstrom of Violence

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-03-2017, 10:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-02-2017, 09:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.   Here's the legal definition of incitement. .  While "Jews will not replace us" is objectionable, it's not incitement... Well, perhaps with the exception of snowflakes who get triggered by any speech outside their "safe spaces".  I, personally prefer to apply law in a non subjective fashion.

2. "Let's go punch some Nazis" does fall under incitement, since that phrase calls for explicit violence against "Nazis".  The term, "Nazi" is highly subjective which is why that word isn't in the law books. Antifa, for example does as Kinser has explained before, applies the term "Nazi" to pretty much anyone to the right of Mao.  If the law allows one to allow the punching of group X. Then, yeah, I'd love to get a simple message of "Let's go pepper spray/taser anyone who either is or appears to be a member of Antifa" out, since that would  be just as legal.

3. It is highly desirable to have the rule of law instead of wishy washy or vague application of punishment due to subjective interpretations. In fact there are lots of laws like the PATRIOT act that are full of emotional subjective laws.  Thus, the PATRIOT needs to be repealed and replaced.

4. There are indeed laws against assorted free speech we have here in the US, but you'll find such laws in Russia,EU,China,and a shitpot of 3rd world hellholes like Venezuela. I find none of those places worthy of emulation when it comes to fundamental rights.

NB.  The link above is for Australia.  Here's some info for the US.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ive+Speech

Rags is not a lawyer.

In the 60s, the focus of much of the equality argument was about restaurants, hotels, bathrooms and water fountains.  This involved supremacists exercising the perceived superiority, they were about degradation and insult, but these specific issues were not about words.  The federal government claimed and achieved jurisdiction anyway.

The above free dictionary link does mention fighting words.  If you happen to be a fit 200+ pound male with any sort of martial training or skill, that gives recourse of sorts.  The recourse available to a 100 pound female is less.  The form of recourse is not ideal, is not what I want encouraged.  I think the equality arguments are emotional and subjective at times.  The point of much of the prejudice and hate is to inflict emotional scars.  If you are going to refine things like the Patriot's Act, pardon if I don't chime in.

It would be great if people could just be nice to one another, and not to go out of one's way to chase what they consider not nice.  That seems a dream to me.  Not all people are nice.  Somehow, if people are not nice enough, I would think it matters.

1. 1960's equality fights:  I'll admit those are hazy due to my age at the time. With that said, and I can be off base here due to said age of those times. I do recall lots of marches where there was no violence, but lots of symbolism on one hand [which I don't recall any fear/anger.  On the other hand and I think it's another case of what was old , is new again.  Antifa reminds me of icky things like the Weather Underground and the SLA.  The other demonstrators besides antifa who haven't been violent, I see no issues with.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S..._of_Skokie
I remember this as well. This another piece of the puzzle as to why a bunch of white supremacists can go marching around and looking stupid. Perhaps this is why nobody has enacted bans. 

3. Dreams and the like.  Well, feel free to come up with a solution to the puzzle. The PATRIOT act to me anyways has provisions which violate some of the Bill of Rights.  I don't know how much of the act would remain if said act were to undergo strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.


4. I also have dreams believe it or not. I'd also allow civil asset forfeiture only after conviction. To prevent flight risk and the like, the assets would go into escrow so the defendant can draw some funds to cover legal costs and do stuff like pay living expenses for us proles.  We left/libertarians are like that. I guess that would go under "not all governments are nice" either.


5. Why not steal a page from Alinsky.  Just have a counter march with folks in dunce caps to look like KKK and Star Wars Storm Troopers  to match the white polo shirts of the others? Mocking is both fun and effective ... and of course is non violent.