MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'No Free Speech for Fascists' Is a Truly Terrible Idea

The ACLU is right: Do you really want Donald Trump deciding who gets free speech?

Robby SoaveRobby Soave"No Free Speech for Fascists!" It's a motto you see on pre-printed signs at protests, including at yesterday's rallies in reaction to the violence and death in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend. Paired with a flood of invective against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for the group's support of Unite the Right's right to stage a rally at the city's statue of Robert E. Lee in the first place, they make for a troubling trend.

Support for the ACLU has been on the uptick from the left of late, thanks to Executive Director Anthony Romero's decisive legal maneuvering and online sass in response to President Donald Trump's misguided attempts to restrict immigration from several Muslim-dominated countries. But perhaps these new supporters didn't fully understood what they were buying into? Sure, they might have heard about the group's commitment to stick up for intersectional Muslim activists. But were they fully aware of the ACLU's long history of litigating in favor of KKK marches and other exercises in speech and assembly by unpopular minorities? (Or that time they defended NAMBLA, even!) Along came the defense of Milo Yiannopoulos (along with several others, including PETA and a women's health clinic) in a suit against Washington's transit system, and some of the Trump-era donors started getting nervous. Then, Charlottesville happened.

When people live in low-trust societies—that is, when citizens broadly believe that corruption is rampant and the powerful cannot be relied upon to follow the rules—they paradoxically tend to call for more regulation and other types of government action. That impulse was on full display in the anti-speech reaction to the cold-blooded murder of Heather Heyer. Many observers looked at what happened in Charlottesville and decided that not only were the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and alt-righters who gathered in Virginia culpable for egging on those who physically lashed out, the legal and political institutions that defended their speech rights were as well. These are not just angry or grieving laymen; Waldo Jaquith, a member of the board of the ACLU of Virginia, resigned after the protest turned violent, characterizing the group's support for the right to gather as "a fig leaf for the Nazis."

But if fascists are to lose their free speech rights, someone must take them. And if you believe, as many of the counter-protesters do, that the white nationalists and their brethren were emboldened by the presence of a man in the White House who sees them as part of his coalition, then why on God's good green earth would you want to turn around and hand that very man the right to censor anyone whom he labels fascists? Because I can tell you right now, the list of folks that Trump and the restive-but-still-Republican Congress would like to silence sure won't look like the list those sign-wavers have in mind.

The people wielding "No Free Speech for Fascists" placards might as well be holding up signs saying "No Free Speech for Muslims." And in fact, many on the right have been making just that argument against the ACLU for years now, arguing that exceptions to our free speech principles should be made to curtail extreme speech by Muslim religious figures or activists in the name of security, or even (in the stupidest variant of the idea) that the ACLU is part of a radical Islamic conspiracy. But if the justification for restrictions on the speech of one man is violence committed by another, there can be no end to list of people who may be silenced in the name of order.

I have my beefs with ACLU too. I wish they'd see the importance of defending free speech even in situations where money is changing hands—to my way of thinking, the group has lately been on the wrong side of a few debates over freedom of conscience and association in the commercial realm. But the ACLU's work on speech in the public sphere is unbeatable. They did the right thing to let Unite the Right gather in Charlottesville. Sticking up for free speech for fascists doesn't mean you love fascists, it means you love free speech.

For more, check out Glenn Greenwald's humongous defense of the ACLU's habit of defending unpopular speech at The Intercept.

Photo Credit: Robby Soave

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.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I'm just waiting to see which party ends up calling for "temporary suspension" of the Bill of Rights as "a luxury we can't afford right now".

    Perhaps it will be a "bipartisan effort".

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    The two sides have finally found something they can agree on! Well... in addition to war.

  • Quixote||

    The editor-in-chief, just like the politically savvy liberals at the ACLU, must know very well that civility imposes certain basic limits in any society. Surely she would not dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated, so-called judge in our nation's leading criminal "parody" case? See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    Why then, you may ask, does she choose to defend the "free speech" rights of fascists? The answer must be that she knows that America needs a strong leader, and that many of the ideas some condemn as "fascist" are really a quite normal and healthy part of making our nation great again..

  • IMissLiberty||

    Depriving fascists of free speech is like depriving rattlesnakes of their rattles; it hurts everyone.

  • Longtobefree||

    Sounds like a best case scenario.
    What I expect is a democratic win next election, and permanent elimination of speech from the 'violent right', meaning anything the dems don't like. This will be accomplished with the enthusiastic support of most media outlets, as their competition is tied up by regulations; and by the 'fairness doctrine' being applied by liberal regulators to all media, and the internet.
    Along with the second amendment vanishing under 'reasonable gun violence control'.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    THAIR COMIN' FER OUR GUNS, BOYS!

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Actually a gun control activist has already come out to blame the NRA for Charlottesville, never mind that nobody was shot.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Of course someone is using an event to further their cause.

    A "gun control activist" today is someone who wants a background check before nutcases buy rifles. The window has moved quite a bit.

    The gun control people have lost.

  • rudehost||

    Great dodge on the original point. You seemed to be deriding the notion that your fellow travelers are trying to strip everyone of their human right to self defense. I think an example where they use an attack by car to blame a self defense advocacy organization does a good job of showing how committed you zealots are to that cause.

    I can see why you would try to change the subject but in fairness you are right you are losing and I can feel the blind impotent rage coming off your fellow fascists in delightful delicious waves. Your tears don't taste bad either. A little salty maybe.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Go back to Free Republic you little NAZI party lover.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re:Peter Caca,

    A "gun control activist" today is someone who wants a background check before nutcases buy rifles.


    Liar.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    A "gun control activist" today is someone who wants a background check before nutcases buy rifles.

    Right, I'm sure Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Jerry Brown, and Eric Holder had a come-to-Jesus moment and decided that it wouldn't be right to ban guns as they openly advocated in the 90s. And they all just happened to settle on the position of "universal gun registry background checks".

    Since they're plainly insincere and attempting to get the camel toe under the tent, I'll assume that younger gun control advocates who don't have a record of statements from the 90s and before are also insincere.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Only one of those people has an actual vote in DC (DF) and she is in her last term.

    The gun control movement is almost dead.

  • rudehost||

    "The gun control movement is almost dead."

    No not dead just dormant .... like a bad case of herpes or an alien life form some dumb ass in a sci-fi movie can't help but to revive.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    But that's my point -- the holdovers from the gun ban movement in the 90s all espouse the same positions as the younger Dems, who weren't around when it was nationally acceptable/fashionable to support gun bans. Since they are clearly insincere and just hoping to get the camel toe under the tent, one can conclude that it's likely that their younger counterparts are doing the same.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "The gun control movement is almost dead."

    Those stories of permitted gun holders being arrested in New York are false?

  • Finrod||

    I always presume all gun control advocates are insincere. It saves time.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Oh, you're just saying that because they keep proving themselves to be lying weasels.

    -jcr

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The gun control people have lost.


    Yet they still try to destroy the right to own firearms.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|8.14.17 @ 8:22AM|#
    "A "gun control activist" today is someone who wants a background check before nutcases buy rifles. The window has moved quite a bit."

    Well, turd thinks it's OK, so, uh....
    Fuck off.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It would be beyond obtuse to ever think proggy assholes will truly give up on their glorious dreams about a "cleaner, safer, and brighter future" that looks like a background scene from a Star Trek movie, where government has everything so perfectly tied up they can expend seemingly limitless resources on tooling around the universe. Sounds stupid, but I sincerely suspect that is where most of them got their notions.

  • MarkLastname||

    Maybe they'll move onto car control now.

  • antiestablismentarianism||

    The weapon was a car, so now we have to restrict who can own cars, right?

  • DarrenM||

    There is a much simpler solution. Mandate that all cars must have square wheels.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Earth Wheel? From National Lampoon?

  • BambiB||

    Hmm. Civil war seems ever more likely.

    My major beef with the ACLU is that it's been blind to the Second Amendment.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "Bipartisan"; any measure so absurd, corrupt, or vile that it attracts support from both parties.

  • John B. Egan||

    Nope. The Republicans have already begun undermining the right to protest in 18 states. Check this out: How Important Are Nonviolent Protests and Media Criticism in Preserving Democracy? Depends Which Party You Belong to! The link to this Reason article can be found here: bit.ly/2vWBkAA

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Only 18? Talk about underachieving!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Sticking up for free speech for fascists doesn't mean you love fascists, it means you love free speech.

    Trump and his white nationalist horde should thank the ACLU for defending their rights.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Don't be shy, you can thank the ACLU too.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I do that with donations.

    Since I am not swindled by preachers/priests/mullahs I can direct my donations to pro-freedom organizations.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You're a lying little juvenile.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I can never understand why anyone would want to play with a troll.

  • MarkLastname||

    You and To y still banging that 'Trump's a literal Nazi!' drum, eh?

  • Jerryskids||

    It's not just freedom of speech they're opposed to, the demands for Trump to denounce the white supremacists and make it clear there's no room for them, no tolerance for them, is no less than a demand that they be "un-personed" , which makes it perfectly fine to bash a fascist. Of course, the white supremacists they have in mind aren't just the neo-Nazis and the KKK and the alt-right, it's ultimately anybody to their right. Ultimately, their goal is bringing down Western civilization with its "extreme individualism" as Obama and Hillary put it with their "it takes a village" and their "you didn't build that". Look at the support Bernie Sanders got - he's an out-and-out socialist and he's not a fringe element of the left, he's the mainstream left. It's a short step from issuing demands to enforcing demands and these people are never shy about using violence, violence is baked into the cake of socialism.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You forgot to cite Alex Jones for that.

  • searchingmind||

    Cheese Louise, people! Can't we all just get along? Suppress the immediate threat, the thuggery and physical violence that we all hate, before wrangling over our differences. It seems to me that "Right vs. Totalitarian "right" + Left vs. Totalitarian "left" = Right and Left vs. Totalitarianism" is what we need. A little peaceful cooperation, please!

  • Zeb||

    "it takes a village" and their "you didn't build that"

    The particularly insidious thing about those little phrases is that they are the perverse, collectivist versions of pretty important truths. "It takes a village" is true, but not in the sense Hillary thinks. It is a very good thing when extended family and community care for the wellbeing of everyone's children. And "you didn't build that" is pretty close to "we stand on the shoulders of giants".
    But when used as reasons to violate parental rights, or tax the fuck out of successful people, it's all turned on its head.

  • Aloysious||

    ^this.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I think you are not at all far off the mark Jerrys; this is what a considerable number of that column want, a government of their choosing that will make everyone else gee haw to their agenda. Anyone who thinks that is "can't happen here" should consider what those said as they were getting on the train to Buchenwald. We have our rights only as long as we appreciate and defend them.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Today I heard Pence say: (I paraphrase)

    'Hate speech from the KKK or right supremacists has NO PLACE IN THE REALM OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE'

    /VP Slaver

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How are people supposed to learn from the huge mistakes of Nazis and other lefties if you don't discuss them in open forums?

    Me thinks they don't want people to learn from the horrors of the past. Its harder to control an armed and educated populous.

  • Memory Hole||

    Nazism is right-wing politics you ignorant son of a f****** w***

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You've obviously never read the German sociialist workers party manifesto. Hint: why are they called national socialists?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Nazism is right-wing politics you ignorant son of a f****** w***

    Wrong--that's a post-hoc fallacy developed by commie sympathizers after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nazis were Socialists you ignore turd. As in National Socialist German Workers Party. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German or NDSAP.

  • mswen||

    Nazis were Nationalists first. Why were they opposed to the Soviet Union and Allied with Mussolini? Why did Hitler send Communists to Concentration Camps? And why is it that whenever I call out a Nazi for making racist comments or tell them they need to prove some Holocaust conspiracy theory, they call me a Liberal? White supremacists see Liberals as being opposed to them. Conservatives recently have been pushing a narrative that the Third Reich was Leftist to obscure the idea that extreme, authoritarian, right-wing parties can be dangerous. It's the extremism and the authoritarianism that are dangerous, no matter what variety they come in.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Why were they opposed to the Soviet Union and Allied with Mussolini?

    You really think the history of the Nazis only began in 1943?

    Why did Hitler send Communists to Concentration Camps?

    Here's a clue, because they had gotten in street fights with the Nazis during the Weimar period over who got to be the biggest authoritarian sacks of shit in Germany. They lost, but not for lack of trying.

    extreme, authoritarian, right-wing parties can be dangerous

    What exactly made the National Socialists right-wingers? Because they weren't International Socialists like the Soviets?

  • mswen||

    Read up on "Nationalism" and "Fascism" as political movements. Read up on how Hitler started modeling the Nazi Party after the Fascist Party in Italy and modeled the March on Berlin after the March on Rome.

    A group can call itself anything it wants to. That doesn't make it an accurate description. And the Nazi party already had its name when Hitler joined. You're basing your interpretation on their name over the facts of history, sort of like judging a politician by what they say they'll do instead of what they actually accomplish.

  • Calidissident||

    You can say that something should not be said without thinking it should be illegal.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm sort of ambivalent about the outrage over Trump's supposedly weak response to Charlottesville. On the one hand, I can't imagine any statement he could make that would satisfy his critics. On the other, while I'm fine with the idea of a President denouncing political violence, I'm not sure it's really his role to denounce a particular point of view that is unambiguously protected by the First Amendment (which it is his job to enforce, after all).

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: Hugh Akston,

    On the one hand, I can't imagine any statement he could make that would satisfy his critics.


    You lack imagination, then.

    It doesn't matter if his statement is attacked or not. He could make a statement that made an attack on him ridiculous and shill. Unfortunately, he DIDN'T and the attacks are to the point.

    But considering this is the man that claimed that more than half of all Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists (with only some being 'good people', he assumed), what is one to expect?

    You can attack an ideology without asking for people's rights to be curtailed, by the way.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    You lack imagination, then.

    Perhaps you could use your superior imagination to tell us what statement Trump could have made that would not have been attacked.

    The attacks are ridiculous and shill. Obama was never held to the standard where he had to specifically condemn entire belief systems once any one of them (allegedly) committed violence.

  • Calidissident||

    Not by the left, but the right certainly did hold him to that standard, and now they're not holding Trump to it. There's hypocrisy in the reactions on both sides.

  • Calidissident||

    *I'm should be clear that I'm talking about the entire right, I've have seen a lot of non-hypocritical reactions on the right.

  • damikesc||

    I'm just baffled as to how Charlottesville is terrorism but the Scalise shooting was not.

  • Calidissident||

    You can criticize an ideology without calling for anti-1A speech restrictions. The ideology behind radical Islam is protected by the 1st amendment, for example, but that doesn't mean leaders can't and shouldn't criticize it (obviously this protection does not extend to terrorism based on radical Islamic beliefs).

    In a vacuum, I wouldn't mind Trump's response, but I think it's a bit hypocritical in this sense - whenever Obama condemned Islamist terror attacks, Trump was the first person to label his condemnations insufficient because they didn't explicitly identify them as "radical Islamic terror attacks." In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold Trump to the same standard and expect him to explicitly label and condemn the ideology behind this attack.

  • searchingmind||

    Well said!!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Both looter kleptocracy parties have a hard-on for the initiation of force; both are into racial collectivism. What the telescreens are blaring is exactly what racial collectivism and the initiation of force are all about. It's what they want.

  • ThomasD||

    Out and proud leftists waving signs declaring their authority over speech and we surely must discuss what Trump has to do with it.

    It's the Reason way.

  • ThomasD||

    The fascists will only lose their speech rights when someone forces them to stop waving those signs.

  • Zeb||

    The head of the federal government is sort of relevant when you are talking about restricting rights guaranteed in the federal constitution.

  • ThomasD||

    Agreed, so let's talk about what he should do to oppose those actual fascists who are trying to declare what sorts of speech is off limits.

  • Zeb||

    The naivete of the supposed "fascists" (I'm in favor of not calling anyone fascists) in assuming that restrictions on free speech will be ones that they favor seems worth commenting on.

    As for what to do about them, arrest and punish people who get violent and don't compromise with people who want to limit speech seems like what you can do.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Fascism is what communists call Christian socialism. To them it makes it feel as though there were a difference between the two blobs of altruist collectivism.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Has it even been proven that the guy in the car intentionally ran over those people, and what his motivations were?

    If it weren't for that incident, this would just be yet another story of a leftist mayor ordering police to stand back and watch while leftists violently attacked a peaceful demonstration. How convenient that the narrative got turned around by that one incident.

  • ThomasD||

    Apparently there is video if the car moving slowly toward the crowd, it only accelerated after being struck by a baseball bat.

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

    Not sure if that means anything, but I am sure plenty of people will try to tell you exactly what it means.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    I don't see how you can tell when the car accelerates from the video. There were never any brake lights even as he approached the people in the street, that's for sure.

    One of the possible explanations was that he was just lost and panicked when surrounded by a mob with baseball bats and other blunt weapons, but the lack of even slowing down when he got close to that group of people would seem to foreclose that.

  • ThomasD||

    I agree that the video is not great. The sound is clearly out of synch. When I ignore the video and just focus on the sound track it does seem that the bat strike precedes the increase in engine volume. Which would indicate he only accelerated afterwards.

    I also find it hard (but not impossible) to believe that someone would willing step towards a speeding car in order to strike it with a bat.

    I do wonder what the guy was doing there. Was he lost/did he make a wrong turn? Was he looking for trouble?

    Does it matter? It was a public street.

    I do not see enough video before the bat strike to say whether he was slowing or not. Stopping in a violent mob being as dangerous as anything else.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    They didn't seem to be engaged in violence -- most of them were trying to get out of the way early in the video. And he had the option of backing up away from the crowd as the rest of the road was empty.

    Driving full speed through an armed mob is pretty stupid too -- note that his car was completely wrecked and he had to flee on foot.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, most people were parting for the car. Until he stomped on the gas. Which certainly turned out to be stupid given that the street was already blocked by other stranded cars. What was also stupid was the guy from the crowd who did engage in violence when he struck the car with a bat.

    Are you saying that couldn't have been a precipitating act?

    Again, I don't know what was in the drivers mind when he drove down that street. All I know is that video, and all the others are going to turn that episode into a modern version of Roshomon.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "Has it even been proven that the guy in the car intentionally ran over those people, and what his motivations were?"

    Agree with your second sentence.
    Which is why your first sentence (question) muddies the water.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Dead young white women are second only to dead kids in the leftist pantheon of get-out-of-criticism-free cards.

  • Zeb||

    Has it even been proven that the guy in the car intentionally ran over those people, and what his motivations were?

    I think that's what the trial is for.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Thay will take too long and won't fit on twitter.

  • Rat on a train||

    Was it a Toyota?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "No Free Speech For Fascists!"

    Fine. You're under arrest.

    "NOT MEEEEE!"

    You turn up at protests wearing masks and other obscuring clothing. You want to curb other people's civil rights. You initiate violence when you think you can get away with it. You club together with other vermin to impose your will on society. How are you NOT a fascist?"

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, this discussion is growing tiresome. Or at least the smug smirk and pox on both houses tut-tutting that currently passes for discussion.

    Some fringe groups got a permit to hold a demonstration, they were confronted by another group with a demonstrated penchant for violence but no permit to be there.

    They've been trying to re-create Kent State since Trump was elected. And some useful idiot ended up as cannon fodder. Pathetic and unsurprising to anyone who has been paying attention.

  • Zeb||

    I think that the counter protestors are being painted with too broad a brush by some people. Yes, there were some of the mask-wearing troublemakers who have been more and more of a thing lately. But there were also a lot of other people who just wanted to voice opposition to the racists who don't really deserve to get lumped in with the people looking for trouble.

  • ThomasD||

    I'm entirely sympathetic to the notion that people should be free to do just about anything that doesn't directly harm others.

    I also think common sense says that there are some things better avoided.

    Liberty does not mean freedom from assumed risk. Mingle with a crowd known for violence and do not be surprised when you are harmed.

  • Zeb||

    Sure, you take on certain risks by attending a protest. My comment is more related to seeing the whole scene in such a binary way. There were asshole racists there, and asshole leftists looking for trouble. There were also lots of people who just wanted to peacefully voice opposition to the racists.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    But there were also a lot of other people who just wanted to voice opposition to the racists who don't really deserve to get lumped in with the people looking for trouble.

    Were they carrying bats too?

    If only small groups of extremists would not be lumped in with more reasonable "sides" of life. Like calling neo Nazis- conservatives, which they are not.
  • Zeb||

    I'm pretty sure that most people who showed up were not carrying bats. And of course lumping Nazi's and Conservatives together is also in general unreasonable. The "us vs. them" mentality on both sides is a big part of the problem.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not most but some as clearly evident from video.

    I have yet to see much said that the Nazi group needed to get a permit to allow police and local resources to maintain a peaceful assembly. The lefty fascists need no such permit and turned a peaceful assembly into a free-for-all punchfest.

    Now both sides of these lunatics have obtained a public media forum to distract from real problems.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, it sucks and it's a huge distraction from things that are actually important or relevant.

  • Ron||

    almost all the videos I saw before the car incidence showed the antifa with bats attacking the alt right they even had them cornered. what does a person do when cornered, run people over maybe out of fear maybe as pre meditated act. you won't see those video anymore.

    Note unless the driver went their planning to run people over before hand i don't think it could be called a terrorist act but a violent act of retaliation which is still murder but not a terrorist act.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Kent State is a sore point for me. It wasn't until I read Michner's account of Kent State that I learned that the night before the National Guard was sent in, the protesters had set fire to the ROTC building and then interfered with firefighters on the scene. It just somehow never gets mentioned that the Protesters had ALREADY done something that introduced potentially lethal force to the equation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That should be mentioned but murder of unarmed jackasses was still a horror.

    The left tries to twist context of history. Its why lefties don't like people bringing up what Socialists really have done over the last century-and-a-half.

  • CE||

    Some fringe groups got a permit to hold a demonstration, they were confronted by another group with a demonstrated penchant for violence but no permit to be there.

    A free people don't need a permit to assemble and to speak. It's sort of a fundamental freedom. That's why it's protected in the First Amendment from government interference.

  • Some Engineer||

    The more salient fact is that one side was required to have a permit and the other wasn't.

  • damikesc||

    Even worse seeing guys like Romney buy into the "the protesters oppose racism so they're morally correct" bullshit. They give no shits about "racism". I used to think he'd be a great President. Now, he buys into Progressive guilt trips.

  • Michael Hihn||

    NOW damikesc BRAGS that racism is morally correct (for him)

    Even worse seeing guys like Romney buy into the "the protesters oppose racism so they're morally correct"

    SICK

  • Linux||

    It's almost like they don't know that limitations on speech and forcible suppression of opponents are hallmarks of fascism. To be fair I doubt most of them know what defines fascism. They just know it's something bad so if they call you a fascist that makes you bad.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

    --George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"

  • Charles Easterly||

    I signed in to point out the irony regarding the slogan No Free Speech for Fascists! yet you beat me to it.

    I think you will agree with this: ... you simply can't blindly trust the government with the power to censor that the First Amendment grants all Americans, regardless of their views, the right to express themselves. The ACLU has defended the free speech rights of many types of groups, from the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to the KKK. We don't do that because we agree with either. We do it because we believe in the principle, and because we realize that once you chip away at one person's rights, everyone else's are at risk.

  • ||

    I am not Charles Easterly.

    It may surprise you to know that more than one libertarian is opposed to the racist alt-right.

  • Aloysious||

    I don't get this. Charles is very polite.

  • Rebel Scum||

    "No Free Speech for Fascists!"

    The irony of calling people fascists while attempting to deny them the ability to speak is lost on these retards. And someone should inform Antifa that a fascist is basically a racist socialist, which pretty much describes Antifa. Also, Antifa are worse than their opposition. It was assholes all around in Charlottesville. But one group of assholes was permitted to hold a demonstration while another was not and showed simply to instigate violence.

  • ThomasD||

    They are not retards, it's pure will to power.

    They reject your notions of what words mean.

    They'll tell you what the words mean.

    The KMWs of the world know this, they just don't discuss it.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    The most infuriating thing about today's leftists is their religious-like conviction that their political ideology is holy writ. That's why they're always claiming to be on "the right side of history" and are constantly quoting MLK's stupid "the arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice" phrase--like fundamentalist Christians, they believe that history is a pre-ordained timeline that ends in a utopian society, except in this case they believe it will be man-made rather than divinely enacted.

    And like a lot of repressive religious movements, their belief is used to justify the supression of human rights for anyone they deem to be heretics or apostates.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Baloney. That would make them intolerant.

  • sarcasmic||

    No. Intolerance is what makes them tolerant. They only tolerate tolerant speech. They support tolerance. Intolerance is not acceptable because it is not tolerant. And there is no way tolerant people wills stand for intolerance. It goes against what it means to be tolerant. Don't you know anything?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The mobius strip of morality.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Reread his moniker.

  • ||

    If it's a choice between making racists feel comfortable being themselves in mainstream society, and making black people feel comfortable having black skin in mainstream society, I'm going to choose the latter.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    False dichotomy. You're infantilizing black people BTW by claiming that all it takes to make them uncomfortable is saying bad things about them.

    Everybody in society needs to develop a thick skin. Otherwise a free society will NOT work, and we degenerate to the majority fucking over the minority as most societies have.

  • ||

    You're the one arguing that saying mean things about racists will make them feel unwelcome and unable to express theselves, and that would be bad for free speech rights. Maybe racists should grow a thicker skin and suck it up. If you don't like getting called a racist on the internet by SJWs, either suck it up or stop posting racist shit.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    You're the one arguing that saying mean things about racists will make them feel unwelcome and unable to express theselves

    Please point out where I said that. You're hallucinating. (in fact I said the opposite)

  • ||

    you try to speak your mind online, the leftists will attempt doxx you and ruin your career and endanger your life.

    Oh poor you, Someone might find out your real name, and then other people will be mean to you because you said some racist shit!

    You realize that there was a time in this country when black people "passing" as white would be endangered by the same kind of exposure, right? But I guess, that's all freedom of association and stuff and they should suck it up and grow a thicker skin.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Weren't lefty safe spaces created for this exact reason?

  • ||

    Racists have their own safe spaces. It's called Stormfront.

  • DesigNate||

    You know Hazel, not everyone that speaks their mind online is a racist. For these crazy leftist that would attempt to dox you and ruin your career and endanger your life, we (pretty much anyone that posts here past or present) are just as much the enemy as the shitty racist.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You realize that there was a time in this country when black people "passing" as white would be endangered by the same kind of exposure, right?

    SJW Hazel and her "original sin" theory of race relations.

  • ThomasD||

    Why do you think it anyone's responsibility to do either?

    start by reject the impulse to make people in whatever image you desire and maybe you'll actually be a libertarian.

  • MarkLastname||

    Plenty of black people seem to have no compunction making me feel uncomfortable being white and living in a predominately black neighborhood, up to the point if threats of violence.

    Silly me, I forgot 'racism = power + privilege' so only white people can be racist.

  • eyeroller||

    No free speech for people who say "No free speech for people"!

  • ||

    Let's exclude the people who want to exclude the people who we think shouldn't be excluded, because that would be PC!

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    If you try to hold a rally, the leftists will attack you violently while wearing masks. And if you're in a city run by Democrats (as most large cities are), the police will be ordered stand back and watch... at least until it looks like the leftists are losing the fight, at which point they will declare unlawful assembly, throw in smoke grenades, and then scour social media for anyone on your side who did something deemed worthy of arrest. Of course they will claim they are going after everyone who committed violence, not just your side, but of course they can't identify any of the leftists because they were wearing masks, so that's the effect.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    f you try to speak your mind online, the leftists will attempt doxx you and ruin your career and endanger your life. If you're lucky they do what CNN did, and give you a chance to delete your attempts at free speech and tell you to keep your mouth shut in the future or else they'll out you.

    Followed by doctrinaire libertarians repeating the mantra "it's a private company, they can do what they want" -- never mind that Google, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are for all intents and purposes monopolies, and they regularly coordinate their efforts to silence people. (To be fair, they are under a lot of pressure to do this from anti-speech, anti-liberty governments like the EU.) When are you going to get it through your heads that privateness does not matter -- it's competition that matters. If a company has no competition, it may as well be the government. Use antitrust law to break up Google, break up YouTube, break up Facebook, and break up Twitter. They are just as bad as Ma Bell was, except Ma Bell wasn't trying to shut down speech.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    In your diatribe you have yet to explain how driving a car into a crowd of people is a reasonable or acceptable response?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    In your diatribe you have yet to explain how driving a car into a crowd of people is a reasonable or acceptable response?

    That strawman you burned was so massive that NASA and military satellites are picking up its heat signature.

  • Cy||

    Larry Correia:

    THE LEFT WING INTERNET ARGUING CHECKLIST


    Skim until Offended
    Disqualify that Opinion
    Attack, Attack, Attack
    Disregard Inconvenient facts
    Make Shit Up
    Resort to Moral Equivalency
    Concern Trolling
    When all else fails, Racism!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Google has Duck Duck Go and other search engines as competitors. You don't have to use their service to get good internet searches.

    FB is dying on its own for what Zuckerberg wants. FB is a looks whats going on with family website now. Young people have more competing social forums than you can shake sticks at.

    Twitter is stupid, so I have no use for it but I am sure there are alternatives.

    YouTube has competitors but has been around to have collected a bunch of videos. Its part of Alphabet, so they will find some lefty way to fuck it up too.

    AT&T was almost entirely a government created monopoly until politicians decided that they could make more money off a bunch of baby bells rather than a cooperating Ma Bell.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Google has Duck Duck Go and other search engines as competitors. You don't have to use their service to get good internet searches.

    Yeah, but 90%+ of searches in countries where Google is not banned are done via Google. I'm talking market share, not whether someone somewhere has built a competitor that has tiny market share and no clear path to reduce Google's dominance.

    FB is dying on its own for what Zuckerberg wants. FB is a looks whats going on with family website now. Young people have more competing social forums than you can shake sticks at. Twitter is stupid, so I have no use for it but I am sure there are alternatives.

    Any data to back that up? I've been hearing that line for years yet FB's user base and revenues keep going up. And see above about market share vs. existence of alternatives.

    YouTube has competitors but has been around to have collected a bunch of videos. Its part of Alphabet, so they will find some lefty way to fuck it up too.

    The competitors are nowhere near as advanced as YT and don't have the capital to operate and maintain a site like that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As with anything free market, good companies thrive and bad ones fail.

    All I know is Google is pushing more and more of their stupid products which smells of desperation to me. That is what big companies do who have too many employees who need to justify their jobs. Google search and Gmail used to sell themselves.

    Google sold out and is giving in to China and European governments. Plus, Google is complicit in the US government violating the US Constitution on domestic spying.

    As Google product share dwindles, competitors will fill the void. Or they won't. Who cares as Google is replaceable.

  • ||

    f you try to speak your mind online, the leftists will attempt doxx you and ruin your career and endanger your life.

    Suck it up and grow a thicker skin.

  • MarkLastname||

    That's very consoling to someone who loses their job because they publicly oppose affirmative action.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    The only speech we have to fear is free speech itself.

    /Franklin Delano Snowflake

  • damikesc||

    They want "no free speech for fascists" because they always believe that THEY will determine who is a "fascist".

    ...ignoring that antifa is the most fascist group in existence. With considerable government support.

  • Finrod||

    As it was predicted, fascism has come to the USA calling itself anti-fascism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They're socialists too. Socialists tend to try and destroy meanings of words.

  • WakaWaka||

    "But perhaps these new supporters didn't fully understood what they were buying into?"

    I think these people knew exactly who they were donating to. Sure the ACLU defends the right of Nazis to speak, because that's literally who they believe the Right is. At the same time they seek to silence pro-life demonstrators and they work tirelessly to strip the religious of conscience exemptions. The ACLU is not some valiant organization. They're a Leftist organization now, that will defend Richard Spencer's right to speak, but will look the other way when Ben Shapiro is banned from speaking.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Exactly this. They support speech rights for groups that don't threaten the left's power, and indeed trigger contributions to leftist outrage industry groups like NAACP, ADL, SPLC, etc.

  • Finrod||

    Agreed completely.

  • ||

    I don;t think the government should interfere with anyone's free speech rights.

    I do however, think that the rest of us should be completely free to speak in response to that speech and should make it completely clear that racist are not welcome in our communities, in our society, and in our online spaces.
    I think there should be social norms in which racist speech is punished by social exclusion. This is ALL speech in response to speech.

    The alternative of course, is that if racists feel welcome to express their racism in polite society, that people wearing black skin won't feel comfortable wearing their skin in polite society. You can't have a society where it's totally cool to be a racist douche in public and simultaneously totally cool to have black skin. The first one necessarily entails that having black skin will result in your being subjected to racist harassment.

    So if making it cool to have black skin in polite society means that racists feel like they can't be themselves, I'm okay with that.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    I do however, think that the rest of us should be completely free to speak in response to that speech

    Nobody here is going to argue with you there.

    and should make it completely clear that racist are not welcome in our communities, in our society, and in our online spaces.

    Gotta blow the whistle here -- now you're infringing freedom of association.

    if racists feel welcome to express their racism in polite society, that people wearing black skin won't feel comfortable wearing their skin in polite society.

    Bullshit. Do Red Sox fans saying that the Yankees suck, and vehemently expressing this belief, make Yankees fans uncomfortable wearing Yankees hats? Everybody needs to have a thick skin to deal with assholes.

  • ||

    Do Red Sox fans saying that the Yankees suck, and vehemently expressing this belief, make Yankees fans uncomfortable wearing Yankees hats? Everybody needs to have a thick skin to deal with assholes.

    Right. So you're basically saying "Suck it up darkies! I get to call you a nigger and nobody can say anything about it!"

    Gotta blow the whistle here -- now you're infringing freedom of association.

    How does it infringe freedom of association if I get the majority of people in my community together and say "We're not going to invite racists to our parties, and we're not going to go to any parties in which racists are welcome." If racists can systematically discriminate against blacks, then non-racists can systematically discriminate against racists.

  • damikesc||

    Right. So you're basically saying "Suck it up darkies! I get to call you a nigger and nobody can say anything about it!"

    While it is truly lovely that you seek to protect dark-skinned folks from people who say mean things to them --- what PRECISELY do you seek to do in your pursuit of "doing something about it"? Outside of "suppressing their right to speech", your options are quite limited.

    As far as assembly, try and think what would happen if you moved somewhere where the people didn't like you and decided you don't have a right to exercise your rights. After all, everybody is a fascist to somebody.

  • ||

    And you want to protect racists from having people say mean things about them.

    How many times have we heard that getting yelled at on twitter by "SJWs" amounts to supression of free speech?

  • damikesc||

    I don't care what you say about racists. I do care that they are permitted the same right to speak. Somehow, that makes one a racist sympathizer instead of, you know, consistent in First Amendment protection.

    As far as Twitter, can you name one single case where anybody said SJW tweeting at them was suppression of free speech? I've heard the political banning of people from Twitter is one (which it is not --- it is just a terrible business decision from a company laden with terrible business decisions).

    Can you cite an example of somebody saying an SJW tweeting them is a suppression of free speech?

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    So you're basically saying "Suck it up darkies! I get to call you a nigger and nobody can say anything about it!"

    No, I'm not. I explicitly agreed that you can criticize racists.

    "We're not going to invite racists to our parties, and we're not going to go to any parties in which racists are welcome."

    Because you're dictating to other people who they can associate with. What if I have a friend who happens to hold a few racist opinions? You're being quite binary with racist vs non-racist. There are lots of otherwise good people who have a couple of problematic opinions that slip out from time to time.

    And then of course you have the problem of defining racism. There are people who write for Reason who consider anybody who opposes open borders to be a racist. Your average leftist has an even more expansive definition -- a white person with dreadlocks is racist to them. It's going to be a mess. Why not just keep things simple -- associate with the people you want to associate with. Rather than trying to socially engineer opinions.

  • Zeb||

    Because you're dictating to other people who they can associate with.

    I think she's talking about voluntary social organization.

    Defining "racism" is indeed a problem. I think there is a distinction that must be made between people who will say obnoxious things about race or who are personally mildly prejudiced about race and those who want a whites-only country and want the law to treat people differently based on race. Excluding the former from "polite society" is probably counterproductive if you want to get rid of that kind of attitude. The latter type is a crazy fringe and should probably be kept on the fringes of society.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Even voluntary organization can become oppressive when it uses second-order ostracism (ie refusing to associate with those who associate with the people you refuse to associate with). That's how you get fucked up situations like the Jim Crow South that require govt intervention to correct. (Yes, the JC laws were government action, but they arose from a toxic culture that had taken hold in the South -- it wasn't the big bad racist govt telling non-racist people what to do)

  • Zeb||

    I agree with that as well, which is why I try to make more distinctions than Hazel is. Ostracizing people who are actual, hard-core racists seems reasonable. Excluding anyone who isn't totally pure on the issue (whatever you think that is) is probably going to be counterproductive and only further entrench stupid attitudes about race.

  • ||

    Even voluntary organization can become oppressive when it uses second-order ostracism (ie refusing to associate with those who associate with the people you refuse to associate with). That's how you get fucked up situations like the Jim Crow South that require govt intervention to correct.

    So now you're arguing that government intervention is required to protect racists from being socially ostracized. OMG, the poor racists! They're being socially excluded! Won't the government step in and stop people from being mean to them on Twitter!

    Whose arguing against free speech now?

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    So now you're arguing that government intervention is required to protect racists from being socially ostracized.

    No. Where did I argue that? You seem to have some hallucination problems on this thread.

  • ||

    f you try to speak your mind online, the leftists will attempt doxx you and ruin your career and endanger your life. If you're lucky they do what CNN did, and give you a chance to delete your attempts at free speech and tell you to keep your mouth shut in the future or else they'll out you.

    Followed by doctrinaire libertarians repeating the mantra "it's a private company, they can do what they want" -- never mind that Google, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are for all intents and purposes monopolies, and they regularly coordinate their efforts to silence people. (To be fair, they are under a lot of pressure to do this from anti-speech, anti-liberty governments like the EU.) When are you going to get it through your heads that privateness does not matter -- it's competition that matters. If a company has no competition, it may as well be the government. Use antitrust law to break up Google, break up YouTube, break up Facebook, and break up Twitter. They are just as bad as Ma Bell was, except Ma Bell wasn't trying to shut down speech.

    Is breaking up Facebook and Google and YouTube to stop them from supressing racist speech NOT "government intervention" ?

  • damikesc||

    Either we have anti-trust law or we do not.

    If you wish to abolish it, I'm more than happy to hear your arguments.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Is breaking up Facebook and Google and YouTube to stop them from supressing racist speech NOT "government intervention" ?

    "IT'S OKAY IF A PRIVATE COMPANY VIOLATES OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE GOVERNMENT, EVERYONE!!"

  • Cy||

    "IT'S OKAY IF A PRIVATE COMPANY VIOLATES OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE GOVERNMENT, EVERYONE!!"

    I'd agree with this, if there were a law that any government interaction, funds, snoping programs, grants, etc. with a private entity forces the bill of rights to be observed by that private entity.

    The government privatizing it's tyranny through 3rd parties doesn't make it ok.

  • ||

    You literally are arguing upthread that the government should breakup Facebook and Google and YouTube to stop them from suppressing racist speech.

    That is by definition "government intervention".

  • MarkLastname||

    Given that today the word racist includes anyone who thinks it's possible for cognitive ability to correlate with ethnicity (which incidentally includes such notorious klansmen as Steven Pinker and Peter Singer) or who opposes affirmative action or thinks it's possible to be racist agai st white people, I am by default skeptical of this language.

    'Racism' no longer means racism, and 'anti-racism' has a good deal of racism
    In it. Richard Spencer is a pariah and Al Sharpton still appears on prime time TV and gets to meet with presidents.

  • ||

    No, I'm not. I'm assuming that everyone involved in the group is participating voluntarily. If we don't want to go to your party because you invited racists, that entirely within our rights.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Not saying it's not your right, but if you're making that a general policy, you're pulling on a thread in the tapestry of free society.

  • ||

    And socially excluding people on the basis of skin color isn't????

    You're the one arguing that you should have the right to socially exclude blacks from your communities. At least being a racist is a choice, skin color isn't.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And exclude white people from our communities.

    Racist lefties almost forget that treating non-white people as kids that need you help is racist because you think they are inferior to your _______ (fill in race here) -ness.

  • damikesc||

    You are aware that your idiotic nonsense leads to the Left's recent fascination with "ALL WHITES BE RACIST, YO!!".

    ...which leads to white nationalism as seeing every race celebrated --- except one, which tends to get castigated for no reason a lot --- will cause resentment. After all, if ALL white folks are racist due to skin color, why should we even TRY to be racially sensitive in the first place?

  • ||

    Worst slippery slope argument ever. We have to let racists be racist because otherwise they'll get mad and turn into white nationalists.

    How about letting black people be, like, black and stuff? Why is your focus on how the racists feel, and how racists will react to how they are being treated? Maybe we should spend five seconds thinking about how black people feel and how they'd be likely to react to being treated like inferiors in the alt-right's dream world.

  • damikesc||

    Given that you seem unable to read, not sure how you expect any body to humor you at this point.

    I'm sure all the dark-skinned folks appreciate your non-stop, albeit infantilizing, concern for them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The will wake up someday to lefty slavery tactics used on them.

  • MarkLastname||

    You mainly just seem to be flogging straw men. Who here is on record saying they're inviting white nationalists to their soirees?

    You should read Daniel Mitchell's latest blog post (or maybe the one before it). I'm sure you'll hate it.

  • ThomasD||

    Which racists must we declare unwelcome?

    Which is worse for a libertarian, being a hypocrite or being a totalitarian?

  • ||

    Which skin colors should be made to feel unwelcome?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties want Americans to be unwelcome in.... well, America.

  • ||

    You mean like black Americans, and hispanic Americans and aisian Americans? There are lots of different kinds of Americans. "American" is not synonymous with "white".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Only a racist would assume that I meant being American is synonymous with being white.

  • ||

    Right cause leftists are totally into making African Americans feel unwelcome in America.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats did bring black slaves to the USA.

    Lefties don't want black people living nor black business in their rich neighborhoods.

  • ThomasD||

    That you think "made to feel" is a thing worthy of consideration, much less something within your or my purview tells me you are either not very bright, or possibly arguing in bad faith.

  • ||

    Aren't you the one worried about making racists feel unwelcome?

  • ThomasD||

    You were the one who said "I do however, think that the rest of us should be completely free to speak in response to that speech and should make it completely clear that racist are not welcome in our communities..."

    My only question to you was 'which racists?'

    A question you have yet to answer.

  • ThomasD||

    And, to connect the dots, because you seem kinda slow:

    Either your concern lies only with 'some' racists, thus making you a hypocrite; or your concern lies with the thoughtcrime of all racists, thus making you a totalitarian.

    No other real options based upon your stated desire.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    The difference is that we're not proposing that skin colors be made to feel unwelcome, whereas you are proposing to ostracize racists without defining what a racist is.

  • ||

    Oh we can certainly have a discussion about who counts as a racist, once you admit that people are entitled to exclude people they think cross the threshold of what they believe ought to be socially acceptable.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    people are entitled to exclude people they think cross the threshold of what they believe ought to be socially acceptable.

    Unless those excluded people are black, right?

  • ||

    It ought to be socially acceptable to wear the skin color you were born with. So yes.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    If you leave people alone to associate with who they please, guess what, you'll end up with a lot of homogeneous groups. Know why? Because people prefer to associate with other people like them. You might as well stop pretending to be an individualist libertarian if you're going to demand that people not exclude anyone they want to exclude.

  • ||

    I'm not. I'm arguing that people should exclude racists.

    I'd rather live in a society where people of all skin colors are included and treated as individuals and not members of homogenous groups. Because we're not homogenous, we're individuals. All group identities are based on collectivist thought processes.
    I don't want people to fragment into race-based identity groups, I want to establish and defend broad social norms that demand that we treat one another as individuals rather than as members of racial identity groups (or any other kind of identity groups).

    I don't think a libertarian society could survive in an environment where everyone fragmented into racially homogenous groups - we've already seen that identity politics leads to tribal conflict. If everyone starts thinking of themselves and others as members of identity groups instead of as individuals, we're going to lose the fundamental individualism that defines America's libertarian heritage (or what's left of it).

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Because we're not homogenous, we're individuals. All group identities are based on collectivist thought processes.

    How is hating Joe, Jeff, and John because they're black different from hating Sam, Steve, and Sherry because they're racists? Do you hate the individuals because they're racist or do you just hate all racists?

    I don't think a libertarian society could survive in an environment where everyone fragmented into racially homogenous groups

    Then a libertarian society cannot survive. I suppose if you give humanity and 10,000 years or so of essentially living on top of each other, maybe human nature will change.

  • ||

    How is hating Joe, Jeff, and John because they're black different from hating Sam, Steve, and Sherry because they're racists? Do you hate the individuals because they're racist or do you just hate all racists?

    I hate the racism, not the racist.
    No really - there is a difference. First of all racists have a choice, and secondly, racism is harmful to other members of society in a way that being black isn't. Black people don't harm anyone just by having black skin, but racists (unless we're just talking about privately thinking racist thoughts) treat others unjustly as a matter of routine.

    Then a libertarian society cannot survive. I suppose if you give humanity and 10,000 years or so of essentially living on top of each other, maybe human nature will change.

    Nonsense, we have all sorts of social rules that have developed over millenia to keep civilization from descending back into barbarism. Human culture is a collection of rules of behavior that suppress primitive instincts like racism. It took centuries to get to the idea that people are individuals and should be treated equally regardless of race or class or anything else. That was called the Western Enlightenment.

    The idea that it's cool to just go full tribal and get all in-groupy with your kind is a direct rejection of centuries of cultural evolution that culminated in the principles enshrined in the founding documents of the United States. Equal justice under law. All men are create equal.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    The idea that it's cool to just go full tribal and get all in-groupy with your kind is a direct rejection of centuries of cultural evolution that culminated in the principles enshrined in the founding documents of the United States.

    And yet, that is what makes some people happy. Don't like it? Don't associate with them. You can follow whatever social norms you like, you can shun whatever you don't like, you can advocate for or against whatever you want to advocate for or against. Just don't think that you're objectively right and everyone has to agree with you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I don't want people to fragment into race-based identity groups, I want to establish and defend broad social norms that demand that we treat one another as individuals rather than as members of racial identity groups (or any other kind of identity groups).


    Sounds like government force to make that happen.

  • ||

    Do you not understand what a "social norm" is?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Do you not understand what a "social norm" is?

    Do you not understand that social norms typically end up being codified into varying degrees of law and enforced by the government? Do you really want to go down a path where the government is arbitrarily deciding what constitutes protected speech and what isn't?

  • WakaWaka||

    There was a certain political party over the weekend that had a conference at Netroots and shouted down a white candidate, because she was running in a primary against a black candidate.

    Would these people be considered racist for viewing people based upon their skin color versus their ideas?

    When people say the 'libertarian movement' is collapsing because there are a lot of hypocrites now, HazelMeade is a perfect example of this. She doesn't view people as individuals- she views them as member of some identity groups. The longer we entertain these people, the sooner all our ideals will be corrupted.

  • MarkLastname||

    It's racist for white people to believe it's possible to be racist against white people.

  • damikesc||

    A lot of Lefties buy into white privilege.

    It is an inherently racist ideology.

    So, ANYBODY who proclaims that white privilege is a thing should be ostracized, right?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    The alternative of course, is that if racists feel welcome to express their racism in polite society that people wearing black skin won't feel comfortable wearing their skin in polite society

    Yeah, I'm sure you're totally going to scold non-white racists about that too.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    funny.

    George Washington was really tall, so he would be stuffed into a challenger.

  • Memory Hole||

    I'm not worried about free speech because we have it more or less locked down in our Constitution.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just like the 2A.

  • ThomasD||

    Or the 4th and our protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

    Asset forfeiture, demanding you prove your innocence to reclaim you own property, apparently being entirely reasonable...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just like the 2A.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Just like the 2A.

    Where Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, stating that 2A protects only weapons used and carried art the time by the militia -- essentially hunting rifles? Original intent. Not a living document. And, of course,no right can be absolute, not even Life, by the very definition of unalienable.

  • DarrenM||

    I did not read it like that.

    He wrote that the Constitution protects weapons that could be carried and were in common use.

    Read in context, this means in common use today, not 220 years ago.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Since you distorted the clear context, this is his actual ruling. My emphasis.

    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?

    And, again, no rights are absolute, not even life, per the definition of unalienable.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Where Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, stating that 2A protects only weapons used and carried art the time by the militia -- essentially hunting rifles?

    No, several towns had their own armories as well, you moron. You'd know that if you weren't a senile dumbfuck sack of shit.

    And it's telling that you left out this part:

    The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

    So no, he's not talking about hunting rifles, you moron.

    And, again, no rights are absolute, not even life, per the definition of unalienable

    Guess gays don't have an absolute right to get married, then, per this retarded hot take.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Where Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, stating that 2A protects only weapons used and carried art the time by the militia -- essentially hunting rifles?

    No, several towns had their own armories as well, you moron. You'd know that if you weren't a senile dumbfuck sack of shit.

    WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS? IN....THE.... 1700s? (sneer)
    I cited and linked a Supreme Court ruling. You're just a cyber-bully shouting down the truth, and posting anonymous bullshit, coward.

    So no, he's not talking about hunting rifles, you moron.

    (snort) He is in the opinion I cited. And I said "essentially" hunting rifles -- what militia members brought from their homes ... in the 1700s ... chump .... when you SHRIEK they had say they had automatic rifles .... in the 1700s ... in town armories WHICH DID NOT EXIST SINCE EVERYONE WAS ARMED! (pees pants laughing)

    Where's your quote from, Slugggo? What are you hiding, chickenshit cyber-bully? (flush)

    My tone and boldface in response to repeated assaults by a raging cyber-bully who's been stalking me for months ... because I keep humiliating his dumbfuck assaults (sigh)

  • damikesc||

    They didn't have TV then. I guess TV news should be regulated...

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS? IN....THE.... 1700s? (sneer)

    The quote talked about handguns, not automatic weapons, you retard.

    I cited and linked a Supreme Court ruling. You're just a cyber-bully shouting down the truth, and posting anonymous bullshit, coward.

    Psycho Mikey screaming that "quoting from the exact same source he linked" is "shouting down the truth"--we're approaching Peak Raging Mikey Narcissism, but not yet.

    you SHRIEK they had say they had automatic rifles

    Psycho Mikey lies here, unless he's stupid enough to think handguns are automatic rifles.

    in town armories WHICH DID NOT EXIST SINCE EVERYONE WAS ARMED!

    Psycho Mikey lies again, or just historically ignorant? Why not both?

    Where's your quote from, Slugggo? What are you hiding, chickenshit cyber-bully? (flush)

    Page 2 of the exact same document you linked, you subliterate, cherry-picking, cancer-addled dumbfuck.

    My tone and boldface in response to repeated assaults by a raging cyber-bully who's been stalking me for months ... because I keep humiliating his dumbfuck assaults (sigh)

    Psycho Mikey crying because people won't take his words as gospel--the Donald Trump of libertarianism. Hormonal!

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: 'No Free Speech for Fascists' Is a Truly Terrible Idea
    The ACLU is right: Do you really want Donald Trump deciding who gets free speech?

    Also, no free speech for people who are left handed, have blue eyes, drive a four wheel vehicle, believe the sun rises in the east, wear shoes or have ten fingers.
    There.
    That solves the issue of free speech in this country.

  • John C. Randolph||

    "No free speech for fascists"

    Then shut the fuck up, dumbass.

    -jcr

  • Michael Hihn||

    I have my beefs with ACLU too. I wish they'd see the importance of defending free speech even in situations where money is changing hands

    They filed an amicus brief in support of Citizens United. And have reeatedly opposed the law banning political speech by corporations and labor unions (profit or non-profit)

  • MikeyParks||

    No free speech for anyone I don't like. I'll submit my list later.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    For lefties, its a list that changes over time and FEELZ.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And that damn Kenyan, Obama.

  • JeremyR||

    Yet writers here are seemingly okay with Silicon Valley deciding who gets freedom of speech or not.

  • zombietimeshare||

    I don't want the ACLU deciding either.

  • Ladyhawk||

    "the group has lately been on the wrong side of a few debates over freedom of conscience and association in the commercial realm." Katherine, why do you insist on THREE links in this sentence? I haven't got all day to update myself on the ACLU.

  • LaKeisha||

    That was already decided in the Westboro Baptist Church case (Snyder v. Phelps).
    The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the inciteful statements by Westboro, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, was entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment...and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous or inciteful.

    I think that was the wrong decision. (I think that the "fighting words" doctrine should have applied.) But as things stand now, that's the latest SCOTUS decision on things like this.

  • Empress Trudy||

    Why not CNN? I would love to check in with Chris Cuomo every day to see what I'm allowed to think.

  • NateWhilk||

    "You believe in freedom of speech for communists because what they say is true. You do *not* believe in freedom of speech for fascists because what they say is a lie."

    John Howard Lawson, one of the Hollywood Ten, speaking to the others during their preparation for testimony, in answer to a hypothetical prosecution ploy, "Do you believe in free speech for fascists?"

  • NateWhilk||

    And, of course, Orwell: 'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"... Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.'

  • John B. Egan||

    So ....I looked and found nothing where Reason stood up for Leftist protests... Did I miss something, or is Reason only really concerned with the rights of Fascists and Alt-Right? This is the most pertinent article I could find from Reason, which was concerning the recent flurry of Red States trying to criminalize protests, which is contrary to our 1st Amendment BTW:

    "SB 1142 doesn't actually do a whole lot but simply add rioting to existing conspiracy and racketeering classifications and defines rioting thus: "A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which either disturbs the public peace or results in damage to the property of another person."

    In fact that language was intended to penalize peaceful protestors 'if they are in the company of w or more others that committed vandalism or damages'. That isn't 'SB 1142 doesn't actually do a lot..'... THAT IS A LOT!

    In case the authors have forgotten: 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting ... 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.

  • John B. Egan||

    So ....I looked and found nothing where Reason stood up for Leftist protests... Did I miss something, or is Reason only really concerned with the rights of Fascists and Alt-Right? This is the most pertinent article I could find from Reason, which was concerning the recent flurry of Red States trying to criminalize protests, which is contrary to our 1st Amendment BTW:

    "SB 1142 doesn't actually do a whole lot but simply add rioting to existing conspiracy and racketeering classifications and defines rioting thus: "A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which either disturbs the public peace or results in damage to the property of another person."

    In fact that language was intended to penalize peaceful protestors 'if they are in the company of w or more others that committed vandalism or damages'. That isn't 'SB 1142 doesn't actually do a lot..'... THAT IS A LOT!

    In case the authors have forgotten: 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting ... 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.

  • Dace Highlander||

    You left out religion, whether by intent or oversight. I hope that doesn't detract from the agenda.

  • mchughjj||

    I agree with the headline, in the sense that I don't want Donald Trump to decide who has the right to express an opinion. I don't want the ACLU to be decisive on the matter either, pick-and-choose leftists that they tend to be. But, this piece is tone-deaf.

    In Charlottesville, we saw hundreds of protesters showing up with a symphony of hateful symbols, symbolism, and rhetoric, some carrying weapons and pepper spray, dressed in riot gear. If this isn't by definition incitement of violence (and therefore not protected by the First Amendment), I can't imagine what is. I don't even care what the counterprotesters stand for individually or by group. I don't exactly walk lockstep with Black Lives Matter. However, to quote Ross Perot, they "didn't create this mess." There is no moral equivalency here. I hope other cities heed this result when considering issuing permits to a cabal of unstable antisocial types bent on creating what we just witnessed.

    I'm happy Trump has bent to overwhelming public outrage to single these people out.

  • Dace Highlander||

    Survival doesn't allow the continuation of a species that willfully ignores threats and violence. While I don't agree with the protesters ~or~ the counter-protesters in this cow patty, IF/WHEN you know that someone is going to confront you with violence, and you DON'T take steps to protect yourself, then you are stupid to the point that you should not have survived. Since I don't view either side in this as being that stupid, then the next logical step would be to be prepared. In this case with riot gear, pepper spray etc.

    My question to both sides, but to you this time since I'm responding to your post, is: If a group, any group, speaks in isolation wherein no one of differing opinions is present, how is this SPEECH harmful and violent? If someone wants to attend and they do not like what is being espoused, why can't they leave? If someone wants to attend why should they be stopped?

  • mchughjj||

    Normally, I don't reply to replies. But, I will in this case. Charlottesville is basically a university town and kind of a liberal anomaly in the middle of huge, conservative swaths of Virginia territory (DC suburbs excepted). Confederate statues, symbols, etc., are everywhere in the area, as well as in the broader South. (I live in SC and have lived in Lynchburg, VA, 1+ hours from Charlottesville). A lot more of these will be removed because of this.

    In light of this weekend, I get annoyed by the representation of sides. There are no sides in this situation. These were outside, beyond the fringe, troublemakers (with obvious mental problems), that would have been chased into the Shenandoahs, had the student body been in town. They chose the site with its diminished summer population to 'counter protest.' The result was predictable.

  • Dace Highlander||

    Well I appreciate you replying to my reply, it makes me think that communication is truly possible...until you dodged the question in the reply completely.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1meNEIv_Ac

    I guess I'm one of "those" people, you know the ones who believe that "everyone" really does have the right to freedom of speech without resort to violence. Whether it is speech of the left or the right is inconsequential. I thought my question of sufficient neutrality that it could be answered by anyone with fear of "betraying" the cause, whatever the cause may be.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Caf-HgrhIHo

  • Michael Hihn||

    The result was predictable.

    Huh? How does any of that "predict" the violent initiation of force by the nazi/kkk/fascists? as proven here?

  • XM||

    I think the "definition" of inciting a riot goes a little beyond demonstrators appearing at rallies geared up in paramilitary outfit or hateful symbols. Otherwise, both sides would be guilty.

    At the top of my head there has to be intent and the threat has to be specific - like urging the crowd to "burn that down Macys building tonight", which is what happened at BLM rally. The speaker was arrested.

  • Michael Hihn||

    More lame.

    think the "definition" of inciting a riot goes a little beyond demonstrators appearing at rallies geared up in paramilitary outfit or hateful symbols. otherwise, both sides would be guilty.

    Video proof of the truth,

  • Craig J Bolton||

    This is a well written and well reasoned (excuse the pun) commentary. I just wish that I felt more assurance that this cheerleading for the conception of free speech endorsed by the ACLU extended to the free speech rights of "dangerous socialists," or "Illegals." But my reading is that it doesn't among the adherents of the "libertarian" Right

  • Michael Hihn||

    But my reading is that it doesn't among the adherents of the "libertarian" Right

    Not the real one, Not for almost 50 years.

  • Dace Highlander||

    Many people on here have been using the term "racist" without really defining it.

    Lets look at some of the items which have gotten people branded as "racist": (These are in no particular order because, NO EDIT)

    Eating food from another culture.

    Wearing clothing from another culture.

    Wearing earrings.

    Seeing someone's skin color.

    Not seeing someone's skin color.

    Disagreeing with someone's opinion.

    Listening to music.

    Driving a pick-up truck.

    "Being" white.

    Speaking Spanish.

    Asking what is racism.

    Answering questions.

    Moving hands while speaking.

    Saying they have (insert race of choice) friends.

    Saying they don't have (insert race of choice) friends.

    Spelling correctly.

    Going to school.

    Being a conservative.

    Not being a liberal.

    Being against affirmative action.

    Saying hello.

    Sitting when (insert racial option) enters a room.

    I don't really need to go on here. Now I'd like to ask, how many of these traits does someone have to exhibit before they are "racist"? But what if they are (insert list of sensitive personality traits) but only do one or two "racist" things? Can someone be "a little" racist? What is acceptable?

    My point is: People, ALL PEOPLE, are an amalgamation (Thank your Reader's Digest) of personality traits. If you look even slightly more intensely than a glance, you will find something you don't like. Labeling everything racist will mean that you have no one with you because at least one thing will be different.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You actually said that IN PUBLIC?

  • Hank Phillips||

    I could watch nationalsocialists and internationalsocialists kill each other with Remarque-able equanimity. The only downside is that looters keep pointing to other socialist and mixed-economy mystics of obscurantism and shrieking "right-wing!" They then point to libertarians and shout the same thing. The bandying about of meaningless adjectives must be a source of great comfort to socialists and heavily-mixed-economy mercantilists unfamiliar with the definition of government and clueless as to what useful such a thing might serve.

  • Craig J Bolton||

  • David Sims||

    Heather Heyer wasn't murdered. She was an accident victim. The driver of a Dodge Charger, James Alex Fields, was driving down a street in Charlottesville, Virginia, going too fast for conditions. His car was moving at about 25 miles per hour, when he should have been going no faster than 10 mph, due to large numbers of people lining both sides of the road.

    The people, however, were Antifa activists, armed with baseball bats, which they had brought with them to use as weapons. It's likely that Fields was going faster than he should because he wanted to get through the area with as little damage to his car as possible.

    As Fields was going past the Antifa activists, one of them smashed his car with a baseball bat. Distracted by the bat's impact, Fields turned his head to look backward at exactly the wrong moment. During the few seconds when he was not looking where he was going, he rear-ended a slower moving car on the street ahead of him. That car was bumped into a third car in front of it, which in turn was pushed into a fatal collision with Heather Heyer, age 31, occupation paralegal.

    Had Fields not been distracted, he would probably have noticed traffic ahead in time to put on his breaks and avoid the collision. And Heather Heyer would still be alive.

  • David Sims||

    After the collision, about a dozen Antifa members swarmed and attacked Fields' car, breaking out windows and apparently trying to get to Fields in order to kill him. In a panic, Fields put his car into reverse to make an escape from his attackers.

    This is actually a reasonable thing to do. I've seen videos prepared by US government agencies as advisories to US diplomatic personnel about what to do if you are in a vehicle that has been trapped by a hostile mob, suggesting a similar tactical course of action. Also, there is this:

    "During my long career I have been in such situations numerous times and the threat of being set-up, ambushed etc. is always present but that goes with the turf. I am sure it was clear to the teenage gangbanger who was sitting next to me that if things went bad he would be the first to be gut shot; if I was going to suffer, so was he! I am fairly certain I was the only white guy for a few miles around and the odds of me making it out would have been slim… such is life, I chose to be there. Having served in Northern Ireland with the British Army in the late 80's and early 90's the murders of Corporals Howes and Wood(s) in Belfast, 1988 emphasized how vulnerable a vehicle is when trapped by a violent mob and how your reaction must be fast and aggressive." —Orlando Wilson, "Driving in Hostile Areas," published in THE CIRCUIT: The Magazine for Security Professionals.

  • David Sims||

    Too often a judgment about whether someone in a bad situation did rightly or wrongly in extricating himself from danger depends on political considerations. Let's not be hypocrites. Let us have one moral standard for everybody.

    James Alex Fields isn't innocent. He drove in a reckless manner, and his recklessness resulted in a negligent manslaughter, with the mitigating factor that he was distracted by an Antifa hitting his car with a baseball bat. But he is certainly neither a terrorist nor a murderer. Most of the accusations against him assign to him more guilt than he deserves.

    Antifa has created a contra-factual ideology that holds that white nationalist speech is "hate speech" (which, mostly, it isn't) and that "hate speech" is not "free speech" (though, mostly, it is — just ask the federal judge who reinstated Unite the Right's rally permit). They use their self-serving ideology as a justification for using threats, intimidation, and violence to prevent groups that they don't like from using their own freedom of speech.

  • David Sims||

    If Antifa and Black Lives Matter hadn't imposed themselves upon Charlottesville, the white nationalists of Unite the Right would have had their torchlight rally and then dispersed back to their homes. Nothing bad would have happened.

    The media have concocted a narrative that mixes truth with lies, abuses emphasis, and makes inexcusable omissions of important facts. That is, the media are presently trying to do to Unite-the-Right what they tried to do to George Zimmerman during the days leading up to his trial over the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012. Let's hope that these incorrigible deceivers fail this time, too.

    There is, at least for now, a video that shows parts of the James Alex Fields' collision with another car, and his subsequent escape from Antifa attackers, that the media routinely censor from their own videos. If you want to see it, go here:

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

  • Michael Hihn||

    There is, at least for now, a video that shows parts of the James Alex Fields' collision with another car, and his subsequent escape from Antifa attackers, that the media routinely censor from their own videos. If you want to see it, go here:

    PLEASE SEE THE VIDEO ... HOW TOTALLY INSANE THESE WACKOS ARE.

    The video shows him smashing into a street filled with people --- WITH NO OTHER CARS NEARBY at that point.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Heather Heyer wasn't murdered. She was an accident victim. The driver of a Dodge Charger, James Alex Fields, was driving down a street in Charlottesville, Virginia, going too fast for conditions.

    HOW DID HE HIT 20 OF THEM? (SMIRK)

    The people, however, were Antifa activists, armed with baseball bats,

    David Duke says so!.

    the Antifa activists, one of them smashed his car with a baseball bat.

    Ahhh, yoiu saw that on InfoWars!

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER PSYCHO BARBARIAN CRAWLS OUT OF THE TOILET

    Heather Heyer wasn't murdered. She was an accident victim.


    Here's an overhead drone video PROVING you a shameless bullshitter. Arte your parents proud of how you turned out>

  • Eman||

    Nice headline writing! That's alot of alliteration.

  • Longtobefree||

    I don't know - maybe shutting up all the socialists is not such a bad idea.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Without free speech, how could I direct christian and national socialists to the Fuehrer's platform and speeches extolling the wonderfulness of altruism, sacrifice, national collectivism and revealed christian faith?

  • ZZZMike||

    Let idiots and psychopaths speak freely, so we may know them for what they are. The big problem is that past Supreme Courts have decided that "speech" (which obviously includes writing) goes far beyond "speech": everything from interpretive dance to flag-burning is held to be "speech" (evidently the definition of "speech" is "any expression of an idea").
    The instant "speech" turns violent, it is no longer protected, it's illegal, at one level or another.
    To ban violent "demonstrations" is not suppression of "free speech", it's a move for public safety. Consider how the Framers put it: "... of the people to PEACEABLY assemble..."
    There's a not-very-fine line between peaceful demonstration and violent demonstration - which usually becomes mob rule. A peaceful demonstration can even turn loud and chaotic - but not violent.

    PS: The President's attempts to restrict immigration from some Muslim countries (almost all of which were identified by the Obama administration) were not "misguided". It was meant to stem the flow of bomb-wielding terrorists from getting in. One of the judges who blocked on of the Orders even admitted that had Hillary become President, and issued an identical order he would find it legal and Constitutional.

  • Longtobefree||

    To ban violent "demonstrations" is not suppression of "free speech", it's a move for public safety.

    And how do you determine before hand a peaceful protest will turn into a violent demonstration? By the view point of the peaceful protest?

    When a peaceful protest turns violent, as distinct from a peaceful protest being violently attacked, then the cops move in and arrest everybody. But you can't "ban" a violent protest; because it is not violent beforehand, when it can be banned.

    For instance, I have a violent reaction to your post (nausea), so you must stop posting anywhere on the web in order to prevent violence. You good with that?

  • Michael Hihn||

    And how do you determine before hand a peaceful protest will turn into a violent demonstration?

    Fucking nazis and racists ... marching and chanting hatred of jews and blacks is a warning. Marching at the peaceful counter-protesters CARRYING RIOT SHIELDS -- was a good sign they INTENDED the assaults they quickly launched.

    Educate yourself with this video,

  • Praveen R.||

    I am not going to lie. While many libertarians here tend to lean towards the conservative side(not counting the freepers who come here disguised as libertarians), I am one of those rare ones who leans liberal on quite a few issues. But one of the few issues where I disagree with them big time is the tendency of many of them to support curbs on wrong kind of speech(the right does it too especially when they play the patriotic card). I agree with the conservatives who say colleges tend to have an environment stifling ideas on the right. Quite a few on the left are hostile towards school alternatives and anyone who dares explore it are seen as advocating dangerous ideas.

    To hell with people who want to stifle free speech. Learn to get away from safe spaces and learn to grow up and debate your ideas.

  • williamd||

    Gee Nick, I didn't know that Libertarians had a hierarchy to fascists? ANTIFA Fascists better than KLAN Fascists.
    The President clearly condemned all sides.
    Sadly, this is what you can expect when two groups of idiots, (opposite sides of the same coin) get together.
    Commentary like this is why I remain a small l libertarian.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER WACKY ANTIFA PSYCHO???

    Commentary like this is why I remain a small l libertarian.

    (OMG) HE EVEN THINKS THIS IS THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY!
    Stop disgracing our name with your psychotic delusions. This video PROVES your pitiful lie.

  • macsnafu||

    "No Free Speech for Fascists"? Really? I had not seen that before. Idiots, because what they're really saying, intentional or not, is no free speech for anybody except the politically powerful. "Liberals" used to have some belief in classical liberal values, but I guess that's just about disappeared now.

    They warned us that if Trump were elected, there would be hate, disunity, and tyranny. They just didn't tell us that it would be from the left, not the right!

  • Michael Hihn||

    They warned us that if Trump were elected, there would be hate, disunity, and tyranny. They just didn't tell us that it would be from the left, not the right

    Precious snowflake was BRAINWASHED into defending blatant assault and even murder.UNDENIABLE video proof.for the morally afflicted

  • Praveen R.||

    Funny how Trump went on a rant about Colin Kaepernick. Doesn't he have free speech rights too like the "good" protestors for the statue removal?

  • mysmartstuffs||

    The alternative of course, is that if racists feel welcome to express their racism in polite society that people wearing black skin won't feel comfortable wearing their skin in polite society

    Yeah, I'm sure you're totally going to scold non-white racists about that too.

    My recent post: Quick Start Challenge T100 Review
    My recent post: LinkedIn Marketing 3.0 Made Easy Review

  • IMissLiberty||

    The public has a right to hear hate speech and threats.
    Imagine if there were "No rattles for rattlesnakes."

  • tinder download||

    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

  • tinder download||

    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

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online