Standing With Charlottesville

Of the 4 people arrested on July 8, 2 were out of towners who physically attacked 2 Proud Boys; 2 were members of the Fair family who were standing in the Green while black.

Cue the free speech-focused, white-supremacists apologists in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Love Thy Neighbor Notes:

Please appreciate the irony of how the person hysterically labeling people who want a bike lane as '<a href="http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/cycle_track_gets_green_light/&quot;&gt;nazis&lt;/a&gt;&#039; is now defending the rights of actual would-be Nazis.

One of those arrested was filmed assaulting one of the Proud Boys. Why assault charges were filed, I do not know. When Morales-Sanchez calls for dropping charges against her, however, it's clear that he endorses violence, hate and lawlessness, so long as the violence, hate, and lawlessness is directed against those whom whom he disagrees. The so called Anti-facists actually embrace the methods of the SA, including a Kristalnacht in Berkeley and beatings of those who think differently.

There was a time when it was ok to kick the $&!7 out of nazis. That time was called WWII and our grandfathers fought it. Just because these new Nazis grew up in the US doesn't mean they get a pass.

posted by: Noteworthy on August 14, 2017 2:54pm

Love Thy Neighbor Notes:

Do Not be a suck.

https://www.facebook.com/cnn/videos/10157179031376509/

The issues raised here by Dwightstreeter, Noteworthy and 1644 seem worthy of a sincere and genuine response by the other, fellow commentators who disagree with their comments. Instead, the responses and rejoinders seem not to address their points at all but engage in the worrisome thinking that free speech is a right, but only for the chosen. THREEFIFTHS - I am quite sure that your intent for referring to that quote, in the spirit of harmony and fairness, was that it applied equally to all sides and to everyone.

ACER,

Constitutional "free speech" is not infinite. It's illegal to incite people to violence with speech and, given our countries sordid history of slavery and continuing discrimination and given the global tumult caused by 20th century race-centric fascism, and given that the eugenic beliefs of genetic superiority/inferiority have been soundly discredited, incitement is just what white nationalist hate speech is.

@Acer: Some people on the left believe their violence is good because it is in opposition to hateful groups like white supremacists, nazis, kkk, etc.

Acer,

Fair point; I will do my best.

<b>Violence</b>: DS noted that "Some believe that violence is justified to drive the bad guys away" but earlier, of course, reminded us that the four people arrested in New Haven included two counter-protesters and two African-American citizens. So there goes the idea that the 'left' gets a pass. And yes, it's true that some believe that violence against Nazis, white supremacists, hate groups, is justified, <i>most</i> of us do not. You have to also remember the longer and broader historical context of violence being used <i>by</i> these groups to intimidate and suppress progressive voices like abolitionists, civil rights advocates, those who supported the rights of European Jews during the rise of the Nazis, and so on. I trust that you can readily find information about our long history of lynching here in the US, for example. So it's against this backdrop that some argue that talking to white supremacists and Nazis is a useless endeavor. Personally, I don't condone actions like punching people in the street although I confess to some complex and contradictory feelings: I quite enjoyed seeing Richard Spencer get his clock cleaned on TV a few months ago. Guilty pleasure, I guess.

<b<Shutting Down Speech</i>: I know there's a lot of confusion about the first amendment. It only covers government suppression of expression. Nothing in the letter or spirit of the first amendment prevents a community from rallying to oppose people whose words and ideologies are in direct conflict with American pluralist values. If the Proud Boys from out of town shows up on the Green to have a gathering, I suppose that's their right. And if a much larger group of local citizens shows up to speak in opposition and "shout them down" that's their right as well. We're not talking about a free exchange of different ideas, here. We're talking about hateful ideologies that have been litigated throughout history, with civilized society thoroughly rejecting.

Robn: Are you advocating criminal assault against those with whom you disagree?
BTW, while technically illegal, in the late forties it was also acceptable to beat Communists and any "uppity" negroes. "Uppity" would include those who tried to vote, or were successful businessmen who outcompeted whites. (Negroes often met worse fates than beatings.). It was, also, legal to arrest people who expressed their dissatisfaction with the nation by desecrating our flag.

3/5"s: Interesting 1947 video, especially considering the War Department did not desegregate until 1948, and the Navy discriminated against Filipinos until the early 1970's.

(continued):
I would ask DS this: the last line of your comment implies that you think there's some "truth" to be found in the Proud Boys or other WS messages. What do you see there?

<b>The ACLU</b>: I guess they are joining a case brought by Milo Yiannopalous (spelling? Don't regard him highly enough to check). I respect the principle defended by the ACLU and acknowledge their concern that a perceived infringement on one voice might become a infringement on another, at a different time. At the same time, they are an organization with finite resources and supported (I suspect) by people who probably find MY's ideologies and speech repellent. Is this the best use of those resources provided by those members and donors? Is this case important enough and in the right court to set a problematic precedent? That's also a legitimate concern. The ACLU is usually characterized as a 'leftist' organization and I'm unaware of any corresponding right-leaning group so dedicated to the defense of political opponents. I also question whether Mr. Yiannapolous's devotion to free expression would lead him to materially support the rights of a speaker he doesn't like. I would remind you, too, that suppression of unpopular speech has also historically been a tool of the political right. Remember the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher, after 9/11? Were you this concerned when the Dixie Chicks were the targets of death threats and sponsor boycotts? What about books removed from libraries and school curricula at the demand of the political right? I know Bill Maher is loathed by conservatives but to my mind, he's probably the most ideologically consistent public voice on issues of free expression, arguing that basically anything anyone wants to say is fine.

Hope that helps.

1644,

I'm advocating forceful resistance against people whose "speech" is telling fellow citizens that they're not equal and that they should get out.

Mr. Kurtz: The ACLU's case is much broader than, and independent of Milo Y's case. The Washington Metro, a government agency, has a general policy of not accepting any "controversial" ads. Entire topics are avoided, such as abortion. The Metro position would be: (1) Metro cars are not a traditional free speech forum like the New Haven Green; and (2) because we reject ads from all sides of a controversial subject, we are viewpoint neutral. I expect the ACLU would say that deciding what is controversial is itself engaging in viewpoint discrimination, which governments cannot do. So, while the Metro could reject all ads, once it opens its forum to some viewpoints, it must accept all.
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-sues-dc-metro-over-rejection-first-amendment-ad
BTW, I like Bill Maher,although his recent apology for using the "n" word seemed to deviate from his stated principles.

Robn: Since the use of force against someone simply because of what they say would be criminal, I believe your advocacy of "forceful resistance" is an advocacy of criminal violence. I certainly hear no denunciation of the violent, criminal, Brownshirt tactics of the "Anti-Facist" groups. Yet, like a good provocateur, you couch your advocacy of violence in words that allow for plausible deniability ("I was speaking metaphorically," etc.).

@William Kurz: The PBs are a pathetic bunch and I hate all they stand for. If anyone wants to shut them down by heckling, banging a drum, singing songs, etc., they, and all the haters, are fair game and deserve feedback.

1644,

Incitement is not protected speech. It doesn't mean that those incited are always in the right, but the inciters are clearly asking for it.

@robn: You're struggling to justify a violent response to hate speech, but you have to deal in specifics.

1644 and DS:

Thanks for pointing me towards the info about the ACLU case and the clarification regarding truth and the Proud Boys.

I concede that I didn't read up on the ACLU thing and heard a radio story about it from which I took that they were suing on his behalf. The more complete story makes sense.

<blockquote>"You can read the comments on Facebook to see which groups and individuals feel entitled to use force because they believe it's justified in confronting evil. "</blockquote>
You sure can. And again, I would point to the fact that the many recent marches in opposition to President Trump and his racist statements and policies (i.e. the Women's March, the Science March, the many demonstrations opposing his Muslim ban) were overwhelmingly conducted by peaceful demonstrators, employing peaceful rhetoric. Compare this to the numerous right-wing marches attended largely by armed white men indulging in some sort of militia fantasy.

And, of course, calls to violence come largely from the political right in this country as well:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/08/driving_into_crowds_of_protesters_was_a_right_wing_fantasy_long_before_charlottesville.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/15/january_daily_caller_video_demonstrates_how_to_plow_through_protesters_with.html

I do agree with you about the personal becoming political. I was speaking with a friend the other day, a person of color, who also argues that these overwhelmingly young and white 'antifa' demonstrators are getting in the way of progress and muddying the messages.

And regarding Bill Maher, I think apologizing when he realizes he's gone too far is what separates him from someone like Milo.

DS

You fail to see the point. That "someone" who believes that violence is justified towards you IS right in front of you...right now... wearing a pointy white hood and/or a swastika on their arm. These are direct descendants of people who were, not two generations ago, hanging innocent fellow black citizens by the neck until dead, and throwing 6M Jews into ovens and gas chambers. the goofballs on the NHV green a few weeks ago were harmless. The thugs in Charlottesville were the KKK and Nazis. No tolerance for those people.

Robn: It still sounds like you are endorsing violent, criminal actions against those who are simply exercising their constitutional right to say things you consider hateful. Hate speech is protected speech, even when it provokes a violent reaction. The only exception here is fighting words, which need to be directed at a specific individual, although even the criminality of any violent reaction is not lessened by the provocation. Frankly, you seemed confused by the difference between incitement and provocation. If a Proud Boy were to say,"Tall people with long necks aren't human, there have too much giraffe DNA," tall people might be offended. However, the Boy's general insult of tall people would be protected speech. On the other hand, if someone were to say, in response, "That hateful person doesn't like tall people. Let's beat him to drive him out," that might be incitement to violence, for which the speaker could be arrested. Thus, Chicago could not arrest Terminiello for speech insulting multiple groups, even though in reaction, a riot had erupted outside the hall where he was speaking. Nor could New Haven arrest Cantrell for playing a recording insulting the Pope in a heavily Catholic New Haven neighborhood, nor could Skokie, Illinois, deny a parade permit to the American Nazis, or require them to insure against a possible violent reaction by Skokie's heavily Jewish population, many concentration camp survivors. A federal judge had specifically ruled that the "Unite the Right" rally could go forward as planned, and that the city's attempt to revoke the permit was because it did not like the speech of the Unite-the-Right group. http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/judge-allows-unite-the-right-rally-to-stay-in-emancipation/article_9965d0be-7ee6-11e7-ab0e-f342e0cf9488.html

W Kutz: Well, it seems you don't believe that criminally blocking roads, making people miss flights, work, etc., constitutes justification for a violent reaction. Perhaps not even the protesters attacking people in cars slowing trying to breach their lines. Yet, mere words of someone like the Proud Boys in a traditional public speech forum justifies violent, criminal attacks? No, two wrongs do not make a right. Criminal violence by the right cannot justify criminal violence by the left, or vice versa.
Lots of cops blame BLM for inspiring the killers of cops in Dallas and NYC. Should BLM demonstrations, even properly permitted ones, be banned? Should it be illegal to use heated rhetoric to protest police violence because it might inspire killings of police? Remember the NYPD saying DeBlasio had "blood on his hands" because he had criticized police brutality and racial profiling?
Watching the video in your link, most (not all) of those driving through the protests appear to be going as slowly as possible, giving the protesters every possible chance to get out of the way unharmed. Until Charlotteville and the tiki torches, the only mob violence I had seen was by the "Anti-Facists", in Berkeley, Hamburg and Seattle, etc.
(tangential, but I am reminded of NHPD saying its officer did nothing wrong in running over a Yale student because she was slightly outside the crosswalk.)

1644,

Okay, there's a lot going on there and I am not 100% sure I understand what you are getting at. First, I am pretty sure I didn't say that I approved of a violent response to Richard Spencer, the Proud Boys or even the Charlottesville Nazis. I <i>understand</i>, which is something entirely different but you're right: simple speech. no matter how abhorrent, doesn't justify a violent reaction.

Second, no, of course I don't think "blocking" the road or making someone late for work or a flight justifies a violent response. No civilized person does. I can't tell whether you think it does. If you do, I'll just borrow some words from Bertrand Russell's response to a man who invited him to debate the merits of fascism: <blockquote>I feel obliged to say that the emotional universes we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest ways opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from association between us.</blockquote>

By the way, it's beyond the scope of the NHI comments section for me to lay out the entire case, but I would not be surprised if at some point in the future, the courts rule against the idea that there's any special privilege attached to driving in a car that makes it acceptable to disregard life and limb, just because someone might not be in the crosswalk or might be standing where you want to drive. To borrow some more words, this time from George Carlin, if it was okay to react violently every time someone was in my way while I was driving and made me late, there would be a long trail of dead men across America.

And if the only violence you've seen is the examples you've cited, you're just not paying attention.

W. Kutz: No, blocking the road does not justify violence. I just don't see moving forward at 2 mph as a violent act, as many in the video were doing, more one deliberately calculated NOT to harm anyone. Plus, regardless of what the NHPD says, it is not okay to hit a pedestrian just because they are not in a crosswalk. Drivers, even police officers, are expected to "keep a proper look-out" to avoid incidents like that cop who hit the Yale student. It's as basic as looking where you are going. I expect the city paid a hefty settlement for the officer's negligence.
On the subject of blocking roads, there is a reason the law requires marchers to get a permit before doing so: to enable police do divert traffic from the parade route for the safety of all. It's no different for Freddy Fixer, St. Patrick's, the KKK, Lugo's group, or the Anti-Facists. If they want to march in the road, they need to get a permit and pay the police costs for blocking the route. (The 1st circuit (not ours) has ruled that costs must be waived for indigents.)

In his speeches and writings, Hitler spread his beliefs in racial "purity" and in the superiority of the "Germanic race"—what he called an Aryan "master race." He pronounced that his race must remain pure in order to one day take over the world. For Hitler, the ideal "Aryan" was blond, blue-eyed, and tall.AS I Look at the pictures of most of those who call them self Neo-Nazi.They are not Blond, Blue-Eye and Tall.So Hilter would have put there a$$ to death for not being Aryan Blood.Shows you how stupid they are.In fact Neo-Nazi groups would not last one day under a fascist dictatorship.

1644,

OK. When they come for you and there's no one left to speak for you, you'll know why.

When hate speech crosses the line from free speech and assembly, it is the responsibility of the police and Justice Dept to do something about it and to make that determination. It is not the counter - protesters' right to arbitrarily make that decision and take steps to intimidate, violate or use or violence in retribution or to thwart their rights.

Nazis should be beat shamed, identified, fired from their jobs and attacked if need be. They believe in an ideology that is inherently violent and must be stopped before their pageantry attracts another disgruntled middle class white boy. Fascism and white supremacy doesn't rise in a vacuum. Also if you want some good bedtime watching go view Vice's 20 minute "Race and Terror in Charlottesville". Vice's Elle Reeve had been with the white nationalists interviewing them since early in the day and you guys can come back and cry me a river about these people and their free speech, like the guy at the end wno came armed with 6 guns and a knife to the city and is itching for blood.

Robn: Who is coming for me? Extremists on both right and left are dangerous. It is not as if Hitler stands alone in the mass murder section. Cue Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Was the fate of the kulaks different from that of the Jews? What of the class enemies killed by Mao and Pol Pot. I recall an article in Newsweek when Indochina went all read, saying how, while there might be killings in Vietnam, Cambodians were be a gentle people so all would be fine in Cambodia. Did the brings of Jewish stores on Congress Avenue in 1967 improve the lives of Hill residents? I don't think violence solves anything.
Madcap: Your beating of people because you believe their ideology "inherently violent" makes you at least as dangerous as they are. The KKK wasn't brought down by the Black Panthers, it was brought down by the FBI. As Noteworthy says, leave it to the professionals.

1644,

You're making a Trumpian false-equivalency between the alt-right and those that oppose them. You're trying to push right wing radical views into the mainstream. I say no. It's not normal and it's not OK.

link to article re: ACLU suit & free speech: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13/the-misguided-attacks-on-aclu-for-defending-neo-nazis-free-speech-rights-in-charlottesville/

grabs more popcorn to watch false equivalencies roll in
Hey 1644, I saw a tweet after the Durham statue came down along the lines of "If we let antifa remove history like this should we allow the nazis to tear down MLK statues?" Was that you???

posted by: 1644 on August 16, 2017 12:18pm

The KKK wasn't brought down by the Black Panthers, it was brought down by the FBI. As Noteworthy says, leave it to the professionals.

The FBI was spying on Martin Luther King.

FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance

Did the FBI cover up its KKK informant's role in Martin Luther King's murder? Historian claims crucial documents were destroyed to stop exposure of high- ranking Klansman who was Fed 'agent'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023813/Did-FBI-cover-KKK-informant-s-role-Martin-Luther-King-s-murder-Historian-claims-crucial-documents-destroyed-stop-exposure-high-ranking-Klansman-Fed-agent.html

How about white supremacist groups infiltrated our police departments?:

This Is Not an Ideal Time to Have White Supremacists Infiltrating Law Enforcement And yet, they are.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55695/white-supremacist-law-enforcement/

My bad. There also have infiltrated military.
Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts

A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines."We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. "That's a problem."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html

@robn: I watched an author discussing Antifa (antifascists) and the Nazis/ white supremacists on Democracy Now and was stunned to hear how few Nazis there were originally when Hitler began his ascent. It doesn't seem a fair match for sociopathic criminal types to take on peaceful protesters who are left to rely on the police and the legal system. I get it. My problem is I am NOT a warrior. I don't own and don't want to own a gun. I'm not going to physically confront anyone.

I am somewhat upset as I thought the Independent was on break this week so I did not expect this article. I would have liked to get my thoughts out there sooner. In any case, as a moral act of vital solidarity with the community, I unequivocally and without any mitigation condemn the intrinsically evil movement of white supremacy and the resulting mayhem it— and it alone— entirely caused in Charlottesville. May almighty God warm our hearts so that enlightened heads will prevail in the upcoming battle in the United States of America that must necessarily confront our consciences towards action as we all diligently work to impose right order in the underlings of Satan, who, a posteriori, and with reasonable certitude, is the progenitor of all evil. We must entreat God's help and implore that He be merciful as we prepare to fight evil itself or perish in its terrible punishing wake. I am entirely aware that my plea is not fashionably today but I am equally aware that man cannot fight this battle alone. Experience and reason both attest to this, as well as faith.

@Threefifths: Former Cong. Stewart McKinney proposed a bill to take J. Edgar Hoover's name off the FBI building in Washington, DC.

Every Jewish member of Trump's administration should resign in protest
Gersh Kuntzman
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, August 17, 2017, 8:04 AM

The Nazis play the race card, so I'm playing the Jew card: Why haven't prominent Jewish members of the Trump administration quit yet?It's a no-brainer: If you're a Jew and your boss says nice things about people who marched in the street chanting anti-Semitic and Nazi-era slogans, you have to resign in protest. You have to say enough is enough to a guy who is so sympathetic to the white supremacist cause that he couldn't even put out a simple Holocaust remembrance statement that mentioned, um, the Jewish victims of the Nazis.You have to make the ultimate statement to someone who believes that Nazi thugs are on the same moral plane as the people who stood up to them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/jewish-member-trump-administration-resign-article-1.3419319

Dwightstreeter,

"Do you realize that the past, starting from yesterday, has been actually abolished? If it survives anywhere, it's in a few solid objects with no words attached to them, like that lump of glass there. Already we know almost literally nothing about the Revolution and the years before the Revolution. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, and every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day-by-day and minute-by-minute. History has stopped." - Orwell, 1984

3/5's/DS: The FBI wants a new building, so the problem may solve itself when the old one is razed. Hoover spied on everyone with any power, but especially congressmen and Presidents, so he could blackmail them. Happily, he is long dead.

Madcap: I don't tweet. In general, I am opposed to erasing history, whether it be a statute of Lee, or Stalin, or Lenin, Sadaam Hussein, or Napoleon. Should we rename Orange and Cromwell because of the offense to Catholics, especially Irish Catholics? Rename Orange Street, George Street? If we are to remove them, it should be done lawfully, as in Baltimore, not by a mob as in Durham.

posted by: 1644 on August 17, 2017 2:14pm

3/5's/DS: The FBI wants a new building, so the problem may solve itself when the old one is razed. Hoover spied on everyone with any power, but especially congressmen and Presidents, so he could blackmail them. Happily, he is long dead.

He may be dead.But all law enforcement still use his COINTELPRO.Program.


posted by: Dwightstreeter on August 17, 2017 9:41am

@Threefifths: Former Cong. Stewart McKinney proposed a bill to take J. Edgar Hoover's name off the FBI building in Washington, DC.

Genealogy Records May Indicate that J. Edgar Hoover Was African-American

http://www.essence.com/2011/11/25/genealogy-records-may-indicate-that-j-edgar-hoover-was-african-american

1644 - history does not get erased by removing a statue or some other celebration of an individual. We should not be honoring or commemorating those who are evil. I realize it's a slippery slope but something decisions are easy. Like Hitler for example…

Individuals Noteworthy defends notes: