Charlottesville

Virginia Governor Responds to Violence with Temporary Protest Ban in Richmond

No more public gathering around a handful of Confederate monuments until the government can make more rules.

|

Lee statue
Chuck Myers/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Eyewitness reports on the ground at the Charlottesville, Virginia, protest indicate that the police did not do a very good job of keeping the sides physically separated. There's no good excuse for why this happened; we know full well at this point that people with violent or otherwise disruptive plans are embedding themselves inside large political protests like these.

But Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe seems bent on the idea that there's some bigger, grander explanation, and so now he's temporarily banning any and all protests at the statue of General Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Virginia.

All of it! Until the government can best figure out how to regulate you people and all those messy ideas you insist on expressing. McAuliffe makes it very clear in his statement and the executive action he signed on Friday that the problem is you:

Reviewing the events in Charlottesville to determine what steps can and should be taken to prevent any such violence from occurring again is critically necessary for public safety and demands a full review of permitting processes and other relevant regulations. There are already, and it is anticipated that there will be more, permit requests for demonstrations at the Lee Monument as the public debate over Confederate monuments continues, leaving grave risks for future civil unrest. Until a full review process has been concluded, it is a threat to public safety to allow permit-requiring activity to occur in the absence of such sensible regulations that should be implemented to govern all expressive activity at the Lee Monument, no matter its content.

"No matter its content." The executive order forbids any protests at the Lee monument and any permits for protests to express any positions or views whatsoever, "engaged in by one or more persons." No flags, no signs, no banners. He does not care whether there are counterprotesters or the possibility of confrontations. You are not allowed to express opinions loudly around the Lee monument, and you can face trespassing charges if you defy him.

McAuliffe is calling for a "task force" that will have three entire months to come up with the appropriate "regulations" to manage protests at this monument.

Coincidentally, during this period of deep government reflection on what it might take to keep people from hitting each other at protests, Richmond is deciding whether to remove its Confederate statues. The mayor of the city announced last week that he would like to see them gone. The city may make a decision on whether to do so in September. You'd have to be extremely naïve not to realize that McAuliffe's order prevents protesting at the site of controversy until after the decision has been made.

We should be terribly concerned whenever governments censor and suppress public debate because of the inconveniences it presents to law and order.

We already see this on public college campuses. Any whiff of violence is used to cancel speakers, which incentivizes people to see the possibility of violence when speakers they don't like come to town. As we also have seen, college campuses will use the cost or inconvenience of having to protect speakers as an excuse to shut down an event.

Don't be surprised if additional officials attempt to replicate what McAuliffe is trying to do here: use the excuse of public safety to shut down protests. We recently saw Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) say outright that it's too expensive and unreasonable for college police forces to protect protesters from violence.

A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens' rights to assemble freely and protest safely. If the police have to spend a day keeping two sides apart, that's not some "distraction" from their jobs. It is one of the reasons we have police at all. Protecting life, liberty, and property is not just about fighting crime and catching crooks. It's also about making sure citizens are safely able to express their civil liberties without somebody throwing bricks at their head or beating them with a stick.

McAuliffe's order is so broad, it would authorize the cops to remove a harmless street preacher if some passers-by started arguing with him. This goes far beyond preventing harm into shutting down merely inconvenient behavior, using the government's own failure to properly protect people as an excuse.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

173 responses to “Virginia Governor Responds to Violence with Temporary Protest Ban in Richmond

  1. “We have to stop these protests until we figure out what’s going on.”

    1. Lemme guess… Ah! George Waffen Bush, 2008, baffled by the market crash and economic collapse caused by prohibitionist asset-forfeiture confiscations.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6bmEv2-rFA
      Amirite?

  2. Terry McAullife is a complete weasel. A Clinton operative rewarded with a governorship.

    1. But you reapeat yourself.

      1. Touche.

    2. Terry McAullife is a complete weasel. A Clinton operative rewarded with a governorship.

      Yep-hence why he wants to shut down any protests over the statues. The Antifa antics are a liability for the democrats and Virginians will be voting for a new governor, AG, and state delegates in November. How convenient that the ban on protests extends past election day.

  3. As we also have seen, college campuses will use the cost or inconvenience of having to protect speakers as an excuse to shut down an event.

    These people aren’t stupid. The last thing they want is to risk Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, or Milo becoming an actual martyr, since they’d likely lose whatever federal funding they’re getting at the very least, and the entire administration and faculty getting fired en masse or the school shut down at worst.

  4. and that’s what you should expect from a DNC Slimeball turned governor

    1. DNC Slimeball turned governor spineless politician.

    2. Call me crazy, but it seems like the response by the governor would have been a better focus over the past week than spending all that article space talking about how bad Nazis are. I guess useful idiots have to be useful

      1. Yeah. More important to attack a group that has been irrelevant since April 1945 as opposed to governors and mayors allowing some protestors to be attacked by others if they do not like the protestors involved.

        Oh, to avoid condemnation — Nazis are bad, mmkay?

        1. The first thing I said is the governor is a tool, but apparently the first thing everyone else thought was ‘how dare Trump’. No idea why, but Terry is apparently super lucky that Trump is absorbing all blame for all things in todays political climate.

          Although at one point does a protest become a riot? It seems that’s a good question to ask these days. Ferguson was just a protest, so I’m guessing the bar is set impossibly high even though some outlets had the balls to call them riots months later, finally.

          1. Trump deserved condemnation. I’m not knocking anyone for doing that. The president does have a checkered history on race.

            1. He does? How?

            2. WakaWaka, Trump spoke the truth and did not deserve condemnation. If you disagree, please tell why. Lemmings in this country have gotten so used to bowing to the leftist agenda, they can’t think and observe for themselves and blindly parrot anything coming out of the left-leaning media.

              1. He attempted to speak the truth, but President Bachman just can’t resist slapping his testicles down on the table in the middle of even the most delicate discussions.

                “The Truth” is that there has been a rash of politically motivated violence this year, and it should all be condemned. To blame the entire right wing for what happened at Charlottesville is no better than blaming the entire left wing for the Scalise shooting.

                But Trump supporters tend to hear what they wish he had said, not what he actually said.

                His tirade on Wednesday didn’t even acknowledge the point I just made – he just took the already-tortured Breitbart narrative and used it as a new jumping-off point to try to portray Charlottesville as being just like Berkeley. The “all sides are equally to blame” stance was idiotic, incompetently tone-deaf, and just plain lazy. The rational point would have been “don’t blame whole groups for isolated acts of violence by fringe lunatics.”

                I get that he attempted to accurately point out that there has been violence from left, as well, but due to his utter incompetence as a politician and a person he was unable to frame that in any way other than “Us vs. Them” where “Us” was well-meaning Nazis who were being treated unfairly.

                1. you forget that he roundly condemned the “nazis” in that same speech. It has since then been discovered that the ringleader of the “permitted” demonstration has a solid history of leadership in the “Occupy: movement and violent protests, and at least one significant anti-Trump protest last November. He is no “rightwing” operative.

                2. The “all sides are equally to blame” stance was idiotic, incompetently tone-deaf, and just plain lazy.

                  He said he condemned violence on all sides. There was violence that needed condemning on all sides. He said there was blame on all sides. There was blame that needed calling out on all sides. He did not say it was equal, and denied he was “[utting them o the same moral plane” when asked. If a murderer gets his rights violated at trial I guess you would be on the internet attacking people for equivocating murder with whatever the DA is accused of?

                  Antifa is openly and unapologetically behaving like a terrorist group and their demands are simple: to limit freedom of speech. And they are getting their demands met, by the way, if you haven’t been paying attention.

              2. I’m not saying that he was wrong to note that antifa is a violent group (although, I do find it disturbing that so many are eager to ignore antifa’s violence or pretend like their illiberal string of violence and attempts to silence speakers since the election has not occurred), but I do think that the president’s unwillingness to specifically name white supremacists, along with his previous refusal to disavow David Duke during the primaries is troubling. Then, of course, there is that time he once took out a newspaper advertisement in New York calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty after a rape in central park (with the alleged defendants being young black men). The accused were later found to be innocent and the president never apologized (that’s Al Sharpton level of sleaze). And the fact that the president is so quick to note Islamic terrorist attacks, but this time he wanted to have ‘all the information’.

                I don’t believe the president is a bigot- I just think he’s an ignorant man. You should get called out for being ignorant.

                1. his calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty is valid no matter who the alledged assailants were. No apologies necessary. HOW is that some level lf sleaze?
                  The islamist terror attacks were pretty easy to figure out quickly. Shouting certain words just before, and during, attacking people with knives and/or cars is a pretty good indicator. In the case of Charlottesville, it has taken a couple weeks for the truth of WHO were involved to come out….. that “neonazi” group with the “permit” were no white supremacists, nor were they right wing conservatives or even “alt right”,whatever THAT means. Ignorance? On whose part?

                2. *sigh* Trump did not “refus[e] to disavow David Duke during the primaries”. Actually, he did that a lot, he just didn’t want to talk about it on one well known occasion, as the first question after winning a primary, but he’d done it just the day before.

                  Don’t get everything you learn about the Central Park Jogger case from Ken Burns.They weren’t “alleged defendants”. They were defendants. They were factually guilty, there was confessions and convincing physical evidence, and they were convicted. No, “later found to be innocent” is nonsense. The victim was also raped by someone else (probably afterwards, when already comatose), who eventually confessed while in prison for murder, but the idea that his semen cleared the pack of beating and raping her is nonsensical.

      2. Never mistake Terry McAuliffe for a useful idiot.

  5. Eat that, freedom of speech!

  6. A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens’ rights to assemble freely and protest safely. If the police have to spend a day keeping two sides apart, that’s not some “distraction” from their jobs. It is one of the reasons we have police at all. Protecting life, liberty, and property is not just about fighting crime and catching crooks. It’s also about making sure citizens are safely able to express their civil liberties without somebody throwing bricks at their head or beating them with a stick.

    What are these “civil liberties” of what you speak?

    1. Anything that doesn’t involve seizure of proceeds of crime can be considered a distraction to an immoral chief of police.

    2. Let’s try a few here:

      Freedom of speech
      Freedom to peaceably assemble
      Freedom to petition government for redress of grievance
      Freedom to associate with whomever you please
      freedom to move about in the public sphere freely.

      Start with those, and let me know when we’ve got them all unfettered with stupid stuff like Mother May I Papers, lines painted on the ground, barricades, curfews, “expression zones”, etc.

  7. Eyewitness reports on the ground at the Charlottesville, Virginia, protest indicate that the police did not do a very good job of keeping the sides physically separated. There’s no good excuse for why this happened

    Sure there is – those officers needed to go home safe that night.

    1. Hey, two of them in a Helicopter didn’t go home that night. That’s enough cost for an entire decade. All police in Virginia will be getting paid time off until 2027.

    2. So did the demonstrators, but the cops signed up for the job knowing the risks…. and, it seems, with a predetermined agenda to allow any such biolence to “get out of hand” to help make a point for their Guvnr. It does seem rather evident that those dirty coppers carefully directed the one (permitted) group directly into the waiting gathering of the non-permitted group. A set up, little doubt.

  8. Eyewitness reports on the ground at the Charlottesville, Virginia, protest indicate that the police did not do a very good job of keeping the sides physically separated. There’s no good excuse for why this happened; we know full well at this point that people with violent or otherwise disruptive plans are embedding themselves inside large political protests like these.

    We should draw a line and then vet everyone outside the line, possibly extremely.

    Also, on an unrelated point, has anyone even looked into pulling ISIS or the Taliban’s parade permits?

    1. Well of course we need to draw a line, that’s how we keep things civilized.

  9. Richmond is deciding whether to remove its Confederate statues.

    While they’re at it, maybe they should take down that statue of Arthur Ashe beating some children with a book and a tennis racket, because that’s just disrespectful to the man’s memory.

    1. I will fight to the death for that statue to remain, just as I fought to the death for my beloved Lucille Ball statue.

      1. Your link is as busted as the Lucy statue’s face. As for me, i’m more of a Monkey Christ guy.

        1. I can only assume the link doesn’t work because the Lucille Ball statue was changed. Thus, I am likely a ghost.

        1. God damn, that looks like a good dog. Damn good dog.

    2. Maybe those kids were asking for it.

    3. The true beauty of that statue is that it was banished from the Ashe Center (for being so horrible) and the city effectively dumped it on Monument Ave, thus giving you the performance art triumph (if you’re driving east) of Confederate general, Confederate general, Confederate general, and a black guy beating kids with a tennis racket.

  10. You are not allowed to express opinions loudly around the Lee monument, and you can face trespassing charges if you defy him

    Poor Terry just wants to sleep. Poor bby 🙁

    1. Give him the prescription of Dr. Guillotine, and let him sleep eternally.

      1. Dear Preet,

        CSP is joking. Promise.

        1. He was fired by Trump. I think we’re safe for now.

    2. At least when he’s sleeping he’s not issuing dumbass executive actions.

  11. I’m sure that mob in Boston has quite a few Mayors nervous. Boston is prepared for that sort of thing. Other cities maybe not so much.

    1. Anonymous vandalism is an incredibly weak form of protest. Though, there’s a lot of stupid self-righteousness going on in general.

    2. The Baltimore City Council last year considered renaming Columbus Day as “Indigenous Peoples’ and Italian-Americans’ Day.”

      “On this day we celebrate all of those things in our country’s history that have to do with both indigenous peoples and Italian-Americans, but not with Christopher Columbus, who was a genocidal terrorist. And we have chosen this day, the anniversary of Italian Christopher Columbus’ arrival in and opening of trade routes to the New World to celebrate all of those things having to do with indigenous peoples, and Italians, because it just seemed the most appropriate. For reasons having nothing to do with Christopher Columbus.”

      1. I’m fully behind us ceasing to celebrate Italian-Americans.

      2. What genocide did Christopher Columbus commit?

        1. HE WAS A GENOCIDAL MANIAC!!

        2. He introduced tobacco to the Old World.

          1. That was Walter Raleigh.

    3. “It’s crazy to think this will escalete beyond Confederates.”

  12. This is what should be protested by every Richmonder, this could be the uniting cause!

  13. This is what should be protested by every Richmonder, this could be the uniting cause!

  14. This is what should be protested by every Richmonder, this could be the uniting cause!

    1. That’s three strikes of protest against Virginia. To the gas chamber for you!

  15. Yeah, the “public safety” meme is the rage now. The statues gotta come down, because they’re becoming a rally point for extremists.

    But how is it that those statues have been sitting out there, being shat on by birds for decades, without posing a “public safety” hazard? It seems to me that it didn’t start being a problem until leftists starting pulling them down. A cynical person might be led to wonder if that wasn’t the point: take a reprehensible but moribund movement and poke it with a stick so that it becomes a useful Emmanuel Goldstein.

    1. Positive fascism is the direction the world will go, and has been going I suppose. It’s harder to get people to fight and kill lesser people these days. So the only thing to do is sell it as saving them with extreme violence and subjugation.

      1. Positive fascism

        That’s, like, what they do at Disneyland, right?

  16. Well, if he did say “the problem is you”, he would have been right.

    People kinda suck sometimes. Even among the “didn’t kill anybody” or “didn’t hit anybody with a 2×2” crowd there was plenty of contemptible behavior.

    That being said, people who run police departments should already be well aware of this concept. And even if they weren’t, and even if they hadn’t been paying attention on reddit and 4chan to all of the smack-talk from Nazis and Communists about plans for violence, they still should have been able to pick up a clue when groups of people were showing up in uniforms that were clearly designed for rioting.

    The account of police clearing the park where the rally was permitted to occur by forcing everyone attending directly into a gauntlet of “counter-protesters” is pretty damning. And that account does match some of the video I’ve seen from the day – police forming a shield wall and advancing and pushing the last few folks out of the park and into the street.

    With all of the militia types carrying that day, they are lucky a full-on shootout didn’t develop, like the one in Greensboro some 35+ years ago

    1. “”With all of the militia types carrying that day, they are lucky a full-on shootout didn’t develop,””

      I guess they have better fire discipline than those with sticks. And the one guy with a car.

  17. There’s no good excuse for why this happened;

    Well yeah, yeah there is – its not the police’s job to prevent crime. That’s just a nice side-effect of them being around. Their job is to come by later, pick up the pieces, and go after the perpetrators and – after due process – punish them.

    But they’re not going to keep you safe – hell, legal precedent even says they have no particular responsibility to do so.

    1. That’s a reason, not an excuse. An excuse is, “Oh, all of our tummies were hurting that day and so it was hard to police good.”

    2. “”But they’re not going to keep you safe – hell, legal precedent even says they have no particular responsibility to do so.””

      My understand was they have no obligation to keep you, the individual safe, there job is public safety. Public safety is what was missing. No?

  18. A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens’ rights to assemble freely and protest safely.

    Aaah, Scott, you beautiful dreamer!

    The “mission statement” of my town (a mid-sized New England city) is to maintain a safe city by working in partnership with the community to prevent and reduce crime, protect life and property, help resolve neighborhood problems and protect the rights of all.

    Evidently my police think protecting my rights comes waaaaaaay after maintaining a “safe city”.

    1. And the Charlottesville PD apparently didn’t even try to live up to that modest goal.

  19. No way that’s even remotely Constitutional.

    1. And who is going to sue? Just because something is unconstitutional, doesn’t mean it gets stopped. You need a lawsuit to end it and the ACLU has quietly said that it is not going to reflexively defend these people anymore.

      1. Is that true what you said about the ACLU?

        1. Yes. Read the WSJ article about it or Volokh in the Washington Post

          1. Well, it is definitely evidence that they do not value free speech.

            1. Well I’m sure that they are kicking themselves now. Why – all of the Trumpians in Reasonland were this close to sending them membership fees. And now – poof.

      2. And our kangaroo courts will say that you only get standing if they kill you. Then you are free to file a claim for redress.

      3. I dunno. Underpants Gnomes?

      4. It would be a good opportunity for a libertarian group to plan a protest over the inability to exercise their right to protest.

        Damn, now I wish I was in Virginia.

        1. No, actually, you don’t.
          I left decades ago as the rot spread south from DC, and morn daily for honor and respect.

    2. haha nope. But good luck getting a ruling on it before the ban expires.

  20. “We should be terribly concerned whenever governments censor and suppress public debate because of the inconveniences it presents to law and order.”

    Reason writers are so brave. Way to make a stand.

    1. Scott went out and punched a cop in the face after this. What have you done that’s so brave?

    2. Man, you’re really fighting for the Douchiest Douche in Doucheland trophy this year. And you know, I think you might have a shot this year.

      1. He’s been working on that for some time now.

    3. Shackleton wrote an article. You wrote a bitchy comment on said article. What’s your point?

  21. ” A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens’ rights to assemble freely and protest safely.”

    This moron needs to read Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

    Pigs have no such duty to protect you.

  22. Why not enforce “no masked protests” laws and then punish the shit out of the shitheads who do the bad shit?

  23. Why not enforce “no masked protests” laws and then punish the shit out of the shitheads who do the bad shit?

    1. Why enforce that law over the myriad of other laws they refuse to enforce? If we enforced laws uniformly then it would be harder to punish only those we dislike.

      1. Man, all my comments are passive-aggressive sarcastic bullshit.

        1. That’s why you fit in at Hit’n’Run.

          1. Did you not realize that you were lied to?

          2. Too soon? Oh, that Hit’n Run…

  24. …we know full well at this point that people with violent or otherwise disruptive plans are embedding themselves inside large political protests like these.

    On many sides, Shackleford?

    McAuliffe can try to shut my protest down with his unconstitutional decree, but he’ll have to pry my “no opinion” sandwich board out of my cold, dead hands.

  25. A core role of the police in the United States is to protect citizens’ rights to assemble freely and protest safely.

    There is no right to assemble freely. There is a right to ‘peaceably assemble’. That is in fact why permits are generally required because courts have repeatedly ruled on when those assemblies violate the peaceable part. And it should be pretty obvious that if those initiating the assembly evince little intent to be peaceable about it (and their own history provides evidence that peaceable ain’t on their minds at all), that the police have no obligation to protect non-existent rights.

    1. Yeah, I’m starting to think that libertarians are the biggest threats to individual right, now.

      1. If you think libertarians are bad, you should see everyone else.

        1. Fair. But, actually, at this point conservatives seem to be a hell of a lot better on speech than a lot of libertarians. The comment above is just bad

          1. Just because someone is commenting on Hit’n’Run, even regularly, doesn’t mean they’re a libertarian.

          2. Conservatives have just decided that when push comes to shove, they prefer coercion (picking the pushers or the shovers).

            1. You probably shouldn’t speak after your last remark

              1. Why? Am I not being peaceable enough for you?

      2. How’s that exactly? I would say Libertarians with very narrow views of individual rights are a threat, but only because they’re in thrall to the prevailing cultural and non-state political power. Wouldn’t want to make the cool kids too uncomfortable by talking about actual implications of individual rights when it comes to people almost nobody likes. But the Lib’tarians are not the ones with the power to enforce that limited view.

        I do wonder how widely shared amongs Lib’tarians is the idea that certain individual rights, e.g., the First Amendment rights, only matter as a limitation against the state, but have no valence against encroachment by other individuals. (And if state actors should encourage those inviduals, sure that’s a little bad, but as long as it’s not them doing it, well, what can you do?)

        This goes back to the last election. The Libertarian ticket’s actual positions were that state-backed cultural authoritarianism was just fine, after all being used only against bigots.

    2. And it should be pretty obvious that if those initiating the assembly evince little intent to be peaceable about it (and their own history provides evidence that peaceable ain’t on their minds at all), that the police have no obligation to protect non-existent rights.

      To be fair, as despicable as the neo-Nazis are, they’re not the ones smashing private property because Charles Pierce is giving a talk on stupid white rednecks.

      1. To be fair, as despicable as the neo-Nazis are, they’re not the ones smashing private property

        Yeah, smashing people, mayhem and murder if SO much better. (vomit)

        This video EXPOSES the bullshit of your brothers in Charlottesville.
        1) Violence initiated ENTIRELY by the fascists, Counter-protestors just standing there.
        2) NO baseball bats by the counters.
        3) ONLY fascists carrying clubs. They CAME for violence. with shields like cops in riot gear.

        Overhead drone video expposes the lie of the murderous nazi assassin’s car.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4MKwzPYrbk

        White Supremacists and and Jew Haters easgerly deny undeniable proof. As their bobbleheads nod.

        (Will he say “fuck you” to prove me correct? While BRAGGING about baiting and inciting?)

        1. “”Yeah, smashing people, mayhem and murder if SO much better. (vomit)””

          When you show up in masks with weapons, that’s what you are planning to do.

          1. “”Yeah, smashing people, mayhem and murder if SO much better. (vomit)””

            When you show up in masks with weapons, that’s what you are planning to do.

            THOSE TWO VIDEOS PROVE YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT.! (sneer)

        2. I remember when people use to say the KKK are cowards because they hide behind masks.

          The same should be said about Antifa.

          1. I remember when people use to say the KKK are cowards because they hide behind masks.
            The same should be said about Antifa.

            WHEN THEY DO It
            TWO VIDEOS PROVE THEY DID NOT IN CHARLOTTE,
            Chump

        3. You’re such a liar, Hihn.

          2) and 3) The protesters had baseball bats and clubs, and in other, closer-up videos can be seen hitting the Dodge Charger seconds after it rammed the crowd.

          You probably knew those things and just wanted to try to deceive.

          BTW, your overhead drone video doesn’t even show the Dodge Charger, which is blocked from view by a building.

          1. You’re such a liar, Hihn.

            SHOUT DOWN OPPOSING TRUTH, like your facsist heroes.

            2) and 3) The protesters had baseball bats and clubs, and in other, closer-up videos can be seen hitting the Dodge Charger seconds after it rammed the crowd.

            I don’t give a fuck about your pahetic bullshrt … or anyone else who REFUSES to see the PROOF. These video links are for ANYONE seeking the truth,

            BTW, your overhead drone video doesn’t even show the Dodge Charger, which is blocked from view by a building.

            CLICK THE LINK! SEE HOW TOTALLY INSANE THIS PATHETIC PIECE OF SHiT NAZI IS.
            **A**BUILDING**BLOCKS**AN** OVERHEAD** DRONE**SHOT!! (OMG)

            IT’S NOT JUST THIS THE ANONYMOUS PUNKS ONLINE THIS IS THE NAZI/SUPREMACIST SCUM WE SAW IN CHARLOTTESVILLE.

            At least they had the balls to stand up for their values and NAME those values
            Not like theses PC Pussies, ashamed of their tribe.

            1. You’re not responding to my points. I’m out of here.

              1. You’re not responding to my points.

                WHINING!!! (sneer)
                I said you were a TOTAL sack-of-shit liar .. described the absolute proof at the videos you lied about so shamelessly … and invited everyone to see the proof and decide for themselves,

                (Yet, he will likely continue mindless copy-pastes from Stormfront – for the cause)

        4. Pretty sure that video was taken when the “counter protesters” were trying to prevent the neo-Nazis and white identitarians from getting to their rally in the first place. “They’re Nazis, how dare they exercise their constitutional rights?” The police should have moved the counters out of they way first. And there are lots of other videos with the “counter protesters” attacking and batting people. Even the ACLU VA would not stand by your position here.

          1. Pretty sure that video was taken when the “counter protesters” were trying to prevent the neo-Nazis and white identitarians from getting to their rally in the first place.

            Pretty sure you’re a fucking liar about the video. AS YOU DEFEND FREE SPEECH BY ATTACKING FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY …. in the same amendment, chump

            “They’re Nazis, how dare they exercise their constitutional rights?”

            (PUKE) What part of “the right of the people to peacefully assemble”: confuses your fascist mind?
            Do you even care that you just made a total public fool of yourself? But for a noble cause, the Fatherland

            And there are lots of other videos with the “counter protesters” attacking and batting people.

            Where are YOUR links, punk?

            Even the ACLU VA would not stand by your position here.

            ALEX JONES SAYS SO! (smirk)
            I prove. You suck David Duke’s cock

            (Boldface and snark in defense of aggression by a Nazisymp .,.. and to highlight his totally shameless bullshit.)

    3. So you want the authorities to read people’s minds, and if they so determine, “hey those guys won’t be peaceable, we don’t have to protect them?”

      In other words, a meaningless right as long as the authorities can come up with some excuse?

      1. You reveal your ignorance of rights, the constitution and 98 years of legal precedent.
        See Schenck v United States (1919) summarized here
        https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939498

        The nazis/racists/alt-rights showed up with clubs and police “riot shields,” clearly there to inflict violence.
        They attacked, and beat with clubs, counterprotesters who were standing silently — exercising THEIR right to peacefully assemble.(gasp) As shown in this video of undeniable proof

        Anything else?

  26. It’s great the public spaces and government arbitration of disputes gives us a peaceful, united society.

  27. RE: Virginia Governor Responds to Violence with Temporary Protest Ban in Richmond

    TRANSLATION: We must burn the US Constitution in order to save the US Constitution.

    1. TRANSLATION: We must burn the US Constitution in order to save the US Constitution.

      (laughing) See why you apparently flunked US history

      98 years of constitutional precedent
      https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939498

      Elementary logic on the principles.
      https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939214

  28. Reviewing the events in Charlottesville to determine what steps can and should be taken to prevent any such violence from occurring again is critically necessary for public safety and demands a full review of permitting processes and other relevant regulations.

    Governor Carpetbagger is still an ass, I see. He could have just let the cops do their damned jobs under current regs. But no, moar rules to the rescue. And I’m sure this review will not result in denying rights to undesirables.

    1. I can see that “Rebel Scum” may be accurate. We have this thing we call a Constitution. Study it
      And a moral principle called unalienable rights. Learn it.

      Can you deal with the core issue here? If two absolute rights are in conflict, which one is superior to the other one, and why?

  29. Then again, no rights are absolute, not even Life, per the definition of unalienable. Despite what authoritarians say.
    No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Your right to swing your first ends at the tip of my nose.

    Chill, dudes. Think liberty.
    Learn what it means.

    1. “No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater”

      The false anecdote of imbecilic authoritarians throughout the country

      1. Keep in mind, disagreeing with Hihn is aggression.

        1. Keep in mind, disagreeing with Hihn is aggression.

          No, dumbfuck.
          INITIATING personal attacks, even verbal, ON ANYONE s aggression. Get a dictionary.

          YOU are an “imbecilic authoritarian” is aggression.– because you are — I say in self-defense of your own aggression. (sneer)

          1. Your dementia is acting up again, you hysterical old coot.

            1. Your dementia is acting up again, you hysterical old coot.

              Because he was publicly humiliated, precious snowflake throws a childish hissy fit!

              (Per the same elementary definition he now responds to, that too is aggression The authoritarian mind is … authoritarian … even attacking to free speech in the name of fee speech!)

      2. “”No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.””

        I’m not sure how this even applies.

        1. “”No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.””

          I’m not sure how this even applies

          Seriously? It’s the relevant Supreme Court ruling.
          Based on the simple dictionary definition of “unalienable.” The logic is here.
          https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939214

          Long version. Unalienable rights can come into conflict with each other. When they do, ONLY SCOTUS can resolve the conflict, as a check on the other two EQUAL branches, who are the only ones who can create a conflict. But the court is OBLIGED to find a solution that BEST defends BOTH conflicting rights. Authoritarian thugs have ALWAYS tried to FORCE their own preferred right to be UNEQUAL (greater), most common in abortion and the first two amendments. Even Justice Scalia ruled that gun rights are NOT absolute (see his landmark Heller ruling)

          They teach this in high school, Civics or History, so it’s rather sad having to explain it on a libertarian website.
          Then again, the authoritarian enabler for the alt-right, Ron Paul, has been shittting on unalienable rights and there co-equal branches for decades. Even says states have the power to DENY fundamental individual rights … OBVIOUSLY more fucking authoritarian than DEFENDING conflicting rights equally.

          Believe it or not, Jefferson and the founders were … literate!

          Anything else?

          1. That ruling was overturned you knuckle head

            1. That ruling was overturned you knuckle head

              Does the pathetic Nazi asshole also gonna bullshit that the “alt-left” charged his his Komrads with clubs? Oh wat! He aleadt did! FOUR TIme!

              Who overturns Supreme Court rulings, your White Citizens Council. (sneer)

              Anyone who doubts how INSANE he is can Google the 1919 ruling in Schenck v. United States, which FIRST established the “cla

              1. (oops)
                Schenck v United States first established the “clear and present danger” limit on free speech.
                That was a century ago — despite all the hysterical screeching by Nazi supporters here.

                Because … NO fundamental right can violate another fundamental right — in Natural Law .. for centuries before our founding. As further described here:
                https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939214

                (Boldface and snarkiness in self-defense of aggression by a Bellowing Blowhard Cyber-bully. A psycho liar)

          2. I was referring to how screaming fire in a theater applied to the area around monuments or any other public space. It’s not like you are going to get trampled trying to get to the exit. Any speech can lead to violence in a public place if the others don’t like what you said.

            1. I was referring to how screaming fire in a theater applied to the area around monuments or any other public space.

              I accept your apology for stating it so poorly.

              The well-known “crowded theater” cite is from the Supreme Court ruling, 98 years ago, which clearly proves my point .. that no rights are absolute, not even Life. Which (again) is what “unalienable” means

              Not sure why this is rocket science. You tell me, if two conflicting rights are both absolute, which one is absolute over the other?

              1. Depends on the one with ‘the right to choose’.

                1. Depends on the one with ‘the right to choose’.

                  I disagree with Longtobefree, but I respect his free speech right to shit on equal rights (but only as speech)

                  See how easy?

          3. “”Believe it or not, Jefferson and the founders were … literate!””

            Well we these such literate guys agreed upon “Congress shall make no law” Can we assume it means what it says?

            1. Well, when theses such…

            2. (boldface for the attention of so many tragically uneducated comments here)

              “”Believe it or not, Jefferson and the founders were … literate!”” (regarding unalienable)

              Well we these such literate guys agreed upon “Congress shall make no law” Can we assume it means what it says?

              Yes. So does unalienable mean what it says!!!.
              And the Ninth Amendment, which incorporated the Declaration’s unalienable rights into the Constitution.

              The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

              This denies ALL levels of government from denying or disparaging ANY fundamental rights.

              We have fundamental rights — beyond those enumerated in the Constitution — and beyond Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Can you tell us what the Founders meant by THOSE words? Can you list for us those rights?

              Anything else?

              1. P.S. on TrickyVic’s confusion

                If you’re a gun rights absolutist, familiar with the Heller ruling, the NRA is lying to you. The precious snowflakes argue that “a Living Constitution” must “evolve and adhust” to recent advances in weaponry. Which Scalia, their hero, jammed up their ass!

                Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller. (Supreme Court website)

                “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.‘ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

                …. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

                Any questions?

              2. Um… In the Libertarian Defense Caucus there was discussion of whether the Second Amendment allowed ABM treaties with the commies, and like Coolidge–but not the Freeze and Surrender 5th column–we figured it didn’t and even got support from the NRA on the issue. But many still had reservations abt open carry of fieldpieces, sarin, anthrax or ebola cultures. A more pressing concern is the proliferation of christianofascist religious conservative “felony” laws making breathing a felony in order to strip second amendment rights in a replay of Kristallnacht laws.

                1. Um… In the Libertarian Defense Caucus there was discussion of whether the Second Amendment allowed ABM treaties with the commies, and like Coolidge–but not the Freeze and Surrender 5th column–we figured it didn’t and even got support from the NRA on the issue.

                  The NRA is a TERRIBLE source! (below)

                  I find it scary that ANYONE could possibly link ABM treaties to the 2A (except retards who claim the right to own nukes)

                  But many still had reservations abt open carry of fieldpieces, sarin, anthrax or ebola cultures

                  ahhh, the snowflakes believed in “a living constitution” that grows and evolves with advances in weaponry. Strict construction is totally tribal for both the NRA and most so-called libertarians.

                  The Second Amendment DOES apply to only (what we now call) hunting rifles, since it can only apply to the weapons used at the time, brought from home by citizens., That was Scalia’s ruling in Heller, that the NRA doesn’t want you to know about!

                  . A more pressing concern is the proliferation of christianofascist religious conservative “felony” laws making breathing a felony in order to strip second amendment rights in a replay of Kristallnacht laws.

                  Please restate with more clarity!
                  And see above on the Second Amendment INTERNAL limits. Externally, no right can be absolute if in conflict with any other fundamental right, for obvious reasons.
                  .

      3. The false anecdote of imbecilic authoritarians throughout the country

        Says the dumnbfuck authoritarian.

        Pay attention, thug.

        NO unalienable rights may be denied or disparaged … ever … for any reason.
        So …. THINK NOW … if there are only two unalienable rights, NEITHER can be taken away by the other!!
        But there are many more of them. “Among these rights are Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.
        “Among” means many more, Sluggo. DUH
        If you reach high school, you’ll learn about conflicting rights. If you pay attention.

        See the Ninth Amendment, which denies ALL levels of government from denying or disparaging ANY fundamental right.

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

        Can Gomner tell us what rights that includes?
        I didn’t think so. Thus,

        Chill, dudes/ Think Liberty.
        Learn what it means.

        (Tone and boldface in response to aggression, which — for DumbFuck Citizen X below — means INITIATING an UNPROVOKED personal attack. Pull your head out of your as and Google “verbal aggression.” Same lack of moral sense as physical aggression, but allowed as free speech)

        (What kind of Nazi JUSTIFIES verbal aggression?)

        (snort)

    2. no rights are absolute

      Absoluteness is what makes them rights.

      1. Do you have an absolute right to have a baker make you a cake? Marriage? Bathroom choice? Gender?

        Usually when I hear no absolute right, it’s usually from someone demanding an right that should be absolute.

        1. Usually when I hear no absolute right, it’s usually from someone demanding an right that should be absolute.

          WOW! What a MASSIVE public screwup. And totally bass aclkwards

          If two absolute rights are in conflict — which one is superior to the other?

      2. Absoluteness is what makes them rights.

        MY POINT.
        If they’e all absolute, then … THINK … neither can be absolute over another!!!
        (applies to fundamental rights — Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness … and ALL the others

        Anything else?

    3. Listen up, dumbfucks: no right is absolute, so we’re cancelling the first amendment because scary people!

      Your right to not have scary people in the news overrides your constitutional right to free speech!

      Whatever you do, don’t suggest cancelling the right to a public park over this!

      1. Listen up, dumbfucks: no right is absolute, so we’re cancelling the first amendment because scary people!

        Your right to not have scary people in the news overrides your constitutional right to free speech!

        Whatever you do, don’t suggest cancelling the right to a public park over this!

        (snort) Listen up, dumbfuck (singular) REALLY said .,… if no rights are absolute (over each other) because they are . UNALIENABLE (send him a dictionary) … THAT MEANS THEY DO NOT EXIST! (sneer)

        The short version is DIRECTLY above his shit storm
        And he somehow missed the detailed one above that … IN BOLDFACE!!! (smirk)
        https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939214

        The only truth in his comment is his handle (smirk)

        (My boldface and snippiness in self-defense of aggression by a typically ignorant cyber-bullying blowhard. BOOGA BOOGA.)

        1. I care deeply about your point of view!

          1. Then you’ll appreciate that i corrected your lack of knowledge here,
            https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939533

  30. Silencing everyone once you have determined you are the arbiter of what is right is always the next step before more violence

    1. You said that in public?

  31. “”McAuliffe is calling for a “task force” that will have three entire months to come up with the appropriate “regulations” to manage protests at this monument.””

    Will it take less than three months for SCOTUS to shoot it down?

      1. That doesn’t make it legal.

        1. That doesn’t make it legal.

          Itls CONSTITUTIONAL either way … as I already explained (to you) here
          https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939527

          And to everyone here.
          https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939498

          NOW do you understand?

  32. At the point a public park is a poorly managed public battleground for assholes, why not just tear the statue out, sell the property, and tell the assholes to go rent a space to rant and vent?

    Oh, yeah: because then we wouldn’t have the right to a space of banned speech. What was I thinking?

    1. Oh, yeah: because then we wouldn’t have the right to a space of banned speech. What was I thinking?

      Your confusion is understandable, shared by many here, uniformed on the constitutional principle here,

      https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939498

  33. There’s no good excuse for why this happened;

    How about “we need a good excuse to go ahead and start the assault on the first amendment, since we have gone far enough for now with the assault on the second. Once we get them accepting of permits to exercise their constitutional rights, it’s in the bag.”

    1. Not sure why you are so totally confused on righyts. If you think those rights are absolute — or any rights are — this may refresh what we all learned in high school

      The reasoning
      https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939214

      A mere century of constitutional precedent.
      https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939498

  34. What authority does the governor have to issue this order, anyway? Isn’t the Lee statue on city, not state, property? And aren’t there statutes governing the issuance of permits for demonstrations?

    1. What authority does the governor have to issue this order, anyway?

      98 years of constitutional precedent.

      Isn’t the Lee statue on city, not state, property? And aren’t there statutes governing the issuance of permits for demonstrations?

      The Constitution is above all, always has been. Schenk v United States (1919) Summarized here:

      https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939498

      The underlying principle (No absolute right can be absolue over another one. Conflicting rights)
      https://reason.com/blog/2017/08…..nt_6939214

  35. So why does Reason stand by and let idiots convince suckers that the Civil War was caused by racial collectivism? Andrew Jackson addressed the Congress in 1833 regarding South Carolina’s virtual secession by outlawing US customs and tariffs. Read it here http://tinyurl.com/y892hzj6 on Google News. This Nullification crisis ended all hope of stopping “protective” tariff extortion within the system just as the Acts of Navigation had necessitated the 1st Revolution in 1775 and led Lord Dunmore to issue an Emancipation Proclamation long before Lincoln and for similar effect. The Morrill protective tariff was enacted after Lincoln was elected but during the 120 days before his taking office. That was when Texas raided armories and commandeered revenue ships, sparking tariff revolt elsewhere. Meekly disarmed colonial Brazilians had no such possibility, and slavery continued there until after Cleveland’s first term–yet communists do not order their statues torn down.

    1. So why does Reason stand by and let idiots convince suckers that the Civil War was caused by racial collectivism?

      Good point, only because slavery was not then seen as racial — since it dates back to the Old Testament. Secession was to defend slavery, the precedent set when Texas had to secede from Mexico to retain slavery. Not to imply slavery was the only reason,

      If only “suckers” believe secession was for slavery alone, then why is it not suckers who believe it was for tariffs alone? Is anyone today committing violence over tariffs, or just over racism?

      The War was different. A military assault by the Confederacy , among the absolute craziest military actions of all atl time, since the Union was totally ignoring the Confederacy (as a nation)

      1. Both sides favored tariffs, and nullification was what southerners shouted after getting the Suprema Corte to force their Fugitive Slave Law on Illinois and Massachussetts. Before the Morrill tarif, they were the victorious conservatives. Afterward, they were again the nullifiers of federal laws–even Robert E Lee commented on this in his memoirs. But the point is that the statue-wreckers are tax-crazed looters, and it is politic to shout “racist” in a crowded convention hall, but not “let’s tax the life out of everyone!”

        1. Both sides favored tariffs

          Umm, Econ 101. The south did almost all our exports and NEEDED free trade. The North, mostly domestic, would have no pain from a trade war.

          And you ducked”

          Is anyone today committing violence over tariffs, or just over racism?

          And your partisan bias ?.

          But the point is that the statue-wreckers are tax-crazed looters, and it is politic to shout “racist” in a crowded convention hall, but not “let’s tax the life out of everyone!”

          Alt-Right brainwashign
          1) Equate pulling down statues with physical assault on peaceful people, even murder
          2) Falsely assume that only libruls oppose racism –which (unwittingly) reveals your own racism!
          3) “Tax-crazed looters” is bigotry (negative stereotype), falsely assuming all counterrprotesters are BernieBots.
          4) Falsely assume most Americans agree with you — so the ONLY folks dsisagreeing MUST be libtards or progtards, or whatever contards say these days.
          5) Change the subject from Civil, War, when your core fallacy is exposed

          nullification was what southerners shouted after getting the Suprema Corte to force their Fugitive Slave Law on Illinois and Massachussetts.

          Did you forget your own argument, that slavery was not the issue?

  36. Antifa get in their time machine, dial back to 1964, place Berkeley CA, and confront the so called “Free Speech Movement” fascists.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7voNTOAaUs

  37. Antifa get in their time machine, dial back to 1964, place Berkeley CA, and confront the so called “Free Speech Movement” fascists

    Somehow you believe both sides were fascist? What does Antifa have to do with this current issue?

    What about the Nazi-KKK-Alt-Right time machine back to the 1800s, attacking and beating peaceful protesters — as if they are uppity niggers to be put in their place?

    Or 1957 Little Rock, Arkansas, when Orval Faubus activated his state militia, naked state force against equal rights for nine black kids — claiming SCOTUS had over-reached by defending the Constitution! (copied later by Ron Paul to deny fundamental rights to gays) — until Eisenhower sent federal troops, ordered to use force if needed (1957).

  38. I think Hihn is a mentally disturbed idiot.

  39. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.