posts 16 - 30 of 30
Avatar
OceanEscape19
Posts: 12

Agree to a Point

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 21:29

One question brought up during class by Ms. Freeman was whether the protesters should’ve been allowed to conduct their gathering.


Even though I don’t agree with the Alt-Right’s goals, I do believe that they have a right to access their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech, their right to assembly and their right to petition. Every single person in America have their Constitutional rights protected, and if the protesters were not allowed to convene just because they had a radical agenda, we would be violating the foundation that America was built on which is the freedom of being able to think for ourselves. Though their goals are controversial and despicable, not allowing them to have protested would have infringed upon their rights as citizens of the U.S.

I agree that we can't stop their right to protest but at the start of the video police only surrounded them after pushing and shoving. I don't believe that any mass protest should be allowed to carry torches or have concealed weapons. At one point the organizer said "we all have pistols" or something if the sort and I think it encourages and catalyzes Violence. Also I wasn't sure if this but were the police or other protestors maxing them, that was also a way that the protestors escalated.

Avatar
Sharpay
Posts: 12

free speech

I agree that the city's officials allowed them the right to have their gathering. However, there's a difference between free speech and using violence as an emphasis to your cause. The supremacists openly said that peaceful demonstrations were behind them, and they carried multiple guns on them. There was clearly no intention of keeping it peaceful, which in my opinion deems them unable to carry out a protest. The incorporation of violence is not and should not be covered under the first amendment.

Avatar
bostongirl617
Posts: 9

Where the world is headed now, I’m not surprised that something like Charlottesville happened. It’s obviously a scary situation but it’s also terrifying to think about the future and how we’re going to be more divided than we already are as a people, and I think that's something we can’t reverse. This is a situation where the negatives outweigh the positives. It’s unfortunate that the time we live in consists of people who are close-minded, effortlessly cruel and judgmental, but at least we’re not seeing situations like Charlottesville daily. And if we did, the world would just explode into chaos.

Regarding Trump’s response to this and not even acknowledging the woman who died, I find it so outrageous that he could tweet this about the crude device that blew up on the train: "Another attack in London by a loser terrorist.These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!” He condemns those who attack in other countries, but is extremely vague when it comes to white people doing harm. He even said aboard Air Force One that Antifa, which is an online, anonymous group that focuses on fighting the far-right and white suprematists, proves that the “other side” (aka the protesters) has bad guys. He’s basically reiterating that both sides were wrong, but seems to be defending the Neo-Nazis and all of those other horrible people. What a president, huh?

Avatar
freemanjud
Posts: 23

For those of you who are interested, there is a very interesting article on the Alt-Right

...and my apologies to the class in which I said that the Alt-Right came out of Breitbart. I completely forgotten that Richard Spencer was the founder (see details in this very good overview article).

"What is the Alt-Right?" from Teaching Tolerance, fall 2017

Avatar
Hermione
Posts: 15

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 22:32

Originally posted by Mister on September 14, 2017 22:21

I believe in the first amendment right as much as the next person. I believe that everyone should be able to voice their opinions if they would like to be heard. However, I don't believe that if you are entitled to respect or credibility if your opinions are either hurtful or damaging to others. The fundamental flaw with the neo-nazi and KKK rhetoric is that even though they pledge their first amendment rights, under the first amendment: Individuals are entitled to rights involving freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, their rhetoric pledges to hurt others in an attempt to deprive them of their rights as human beings, and that is unacceptable.

But if we deprive one citizen of their rights, what's to stop the government from depriving everyone of their rights? We can't choose and pick who to give Constitutional rights to or else the line between freedom and oppression will slowly erode.

However, if we allow them to continue to terrorize the lives of others and say publicly that people are going to have to die to meet their agenda then whose rights are we really protecting. Mister has a point do we continue to let people who have a clear intent to hurt others get away with saying and acting on hate? Maybe the government shouldn't deprive people of those rights and instead the people of a certain town or city in which these protests are happening should decide if they want them to happen. Obviously, there is not a definite answer but we cannot allow people to go out on the streets and say things like "jews will not replace us" or other Nazi or terriost affiliated slogans. Because if we do we are showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others. Instead of moving forward and progressing we are being held back by people who are afraid of the future and where it will leave them. Ever heard of this statement (I do not intend to write this with the intent of insulting anyone): Why would White people be afraid to become minorities if they did not already see how minorities are being treated in this country? Thus I believe that the first amendment right is one of the most important. But at what point does granting that right to certain individuals hinder the rights of others?

Avatar
Hermione
Posts: 15

Originally posted by potatosalad on September 14, 2017 22:08

When I first watched the video, I was completely speechless. I can not put into words how extremely disgusted and frustrated with what has happened last month. As a nation, and as a world, we are supposed to be making progress, and it is disheartening to see us going back in time, to see that there are still people in this world who has the mindset that there is one superior race and that every other race should not be in America.

But how far back in time are we actually going. I think many of us see segregation and Jim Crow Laws as events that happened far back in our history. But the actually truth is that they occurred 60 years ago. 60. The 9 teenagers our age who walked into Little Rock High school in 1960s and were insulted, harassed, and harmed, many of them are still alive today. America has a habit of placing things into history when we have barely acknowledged or learned from them. Many of the older people in the vice video and in other types of those rallies are the same ones who in 60s, 70s, and 80s were protesting for segregation and against the rights of Blacks and other minorities. I was also very surprised during that whole video. But somewhere in the back of my mind I was thinking that America has never learned from its mistakes. That is evident in the election of Trump who publicly insulted Blacks, Hispanics, Latinas, Asians, and more. Then went on to place people in his cabinet who are affiliated with the KKK and the Neo Nazi party and many more. What does that say about our country and every single person in this country who allows those people to walk out on those streets and sprout hatred, violence, and cause death.

One last thing I will say is that when I saw what happened in Charlottesville and that some of those people were invited to talk at the """FREE SPEACH""" rally here in Boston. All I could think of was the safety of my family and friends. I was scared because I don't know who out there want to hurt them or me and don't know how many people would voluntarily help. Anyone that thinks our "history" is in the past and we have progressed, I will tell them that to a certain extent we have. But only really in the cities. What if some of us were to go to small town and little villages here Massachusetts and around the country how would they treat us. Maybe passive aggressively or just with a simple stare that says that we don't belong there. I have been on the receiving ends of those actions and let me tell you it is not fun.

These actions are not America's past, because as I see it now it is our past, present, and unfortunately future.

Avatar
CoryInTheHouse
Posts: 15

Originally posted by Hermione on September 16, 2017 13:35

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 22:32

Originally posted by Mister on September 14, 2017 22:21

I believe in the first amendment right as much as the next person. I believe that everyone should be able to voice their opinions if they would like to be heard. However, I don't believe that if you are entitled to respect or credibility if your opinions are either hurtful or damaging to others. The fundamental flaw with the neo-nazi and KKK rhetoric is that even though they pledge their first amendment rights, under the first amendment: Individuals are entitled to rights involving freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, their rhetoric pledges to hurt others in an attempt to deprive them of their rights as human beings, and that is unacceptable.

But if we deprive one citizen of their rights, what's to stop the government from depriving everyone of their rights? We can't choose and pick who to give Constitutional rights to or else the line between freedom and oppression will slowly erode.

However, if we allow them to continue to terrorize the lives of others and say publicly that people are going to have to die to meet their agenda then whose rights are we really protecting. Mister has a point do we continue to let people who have a clear intent to hurt others get away with saying and acting on hate? Maybe the government shouldn't deprive people of those rights and instead the people of a certain town or city in which these protests are happening should decide if they want them to happen. Obviously, there is not a definite answer but we cannot allow people to go out on the streets and say things like "jews will not replace us" or other Nazi or terriost affiliated slogans. Because if we do we are showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others. Instead of moving forward and progressing we are being held back by people who are afraid of the future and where it will leave them. Ever heard of this statement (I do not intend to write this with the intent of insulting anyone): Why would White people be afraid to become minorities if they did not already see how minorities are being treated in this country? Thus I believe that the first amendment right is one of the most important. But at what point does granting that right to certain individuals hinder the rights of others?

I think that free speech, violence, and protesting have to be looked at separately when it comes to events like Charlottesville. I agree with you on the point that the United States cannot allow people to terrorize the lives of citizens. However, I believe that terrorism can only extend to acts of violence. So yes the murder and all other violence in Charlottesville was terrorism and illegal, but the fact that there were racists there advocating for white supremacy, is a separate issue. Our freedom of speech must extend to everyone, no matter how disgusting their beliefs are. Once you start silencing a group of people, the line is suddenly blurred as to what is okay and what is not. This creates a precedent for other free speech rights being taken away from other groups. By allowing all speech, the line becomes very clear. I agree that violence of any kind must be illegal and condemned, but that is a separate issue to free speech. By allowing free speech, I disagree that we are "showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others". In fact, I feel as if we are doing the opposite. Look at the free speech rally in Boston last month. While there were 50 or so (I can't remember the specifics) free speech protestors, some (not all) of them being white supremacists, there were tens of thousands of counter-protesters there as well proving to the city and the world that Boston will not tolerate hate and that we are a progressive and love filled city. By silencing the opposition, you are helping prove their point, but by letting them speak and then speaking back with hundreds of thousands times more force, you can show that they are just wrong.

Avatar
error404
Posts: 21

Originally posted by OceanEscape19 on September 15, 2017 06:52

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 21:29

One question brought up during class by Ms. Freeman was whether the protesters should’ve been allowed to conduct their gathering.


Even though I don’t agree with the Alt-Right’s goals, I do believe that they have a right to access their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech, their right to assembly and their right to petition. Every single person in America have their Constitutional rights protected, and if the protesters were not allowed to convene just because they had a radical agenda, we would be violating the foundation that America was built on which is the freedom of being able to think for ourselves. Though their goals are controversial and despicable, not allowing them to have protested would have infringed upon their rights as citizens of the U.S.

I agree that we can't stop their right to protest but at the start of the video police only surrounded them after pushing and shoving. I don't believe that any mass protest should be allowed to carry torches or have concealed weapons. At one point the organizer said "we all have pistols" or something if the sort and I think it encourages and catalyzes Violence. Also I wasn't sure if this but were the police or other protestors maxing them, that was also a way that the protestors escalated.

I agree that violence should not be condoned during the protests, but the Alt-Right still has the freedom to conduct their protest despite their hateful language.

Avatar
error404
Posts: 21

Originally posted by CoryInTheHouse on September 16, 2017 16:40

Originally posted by Hermione on September 16, 2017 13:35

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 22:32

Originally posted by Mister on September 14, 2017 22:21

I believe in the first amendment right as much as the next person. I believe that everyone should be able to voice their opinions if they would like to be heard. However, I don't believe that if you are entitled to respect or credibility if your opinions are either hurtful or damaging to others. The fundamental flaw with the neo-nazi and KKK rhetoric is that even though they pledge their first amendment rights, under the first amendment: Individuals are entitled to rights involving freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, their rhetoric pledges to hurt others in an attempt to deprive them of their rights as human beings, and that is unacceptable.

But if we deprive one citizen of their rights, what's to stop the government from depriving everyone of their rights? We can't choose and pick who to give Constitutional rights to or else the line between freedom and oppression will slowly erode.

However, if we allow them to continue to terrorize the lives of others and say publicly that people are going to have to die to meet their agenda then whose rights are we really protecting. Mister has a point do we continue to let people who have a clear intent to hurt others get away with saying and acting on hate? Maybe the government shouldn't deprive people of those rights and instead the people of a certain town or city in which these protests are happening should decide if they want them to happen. Obviously, there is not a definite answer but we cannot allow people to go out on the streets and say things like "jews will not replace us" or other Nazi or terriost affiliated slogans. Because if we do we are showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others. Instead of moving forward and progressing we are being held back by people who are afraid of the future and where it will leave them. Ever heard of this statement (I do not intend to write this with the intent of insulting anyone): Why would White people be afraid to become minorities if they did not already see how minorities are being treated in this country? Thus I believe that the first amendment right is one of the most important. But at what point does granting that right to certain individuals hinder the rights of others?

I think that free speech, violence, and protesting have to be looked at separately when it comes to events like Charlottesville. I agree with you on the point that the United States cannot allow people to terrorize the lives of citizens. However, I believe that terrorism can only extend to acts of violence. So yes the murder and all other violence in Charlottesville was terrorism and illegal, but the fact that there were racists there advocating for white supremacy, is a separate issue. Our freedom of speech must extend to everyone, no matter how disgusting their beliefs are. Once you start silencing a group of people, the line is suddenly blurred as to what is okay and what is not. This creates a precedent for other free speech rights being taken away from other groups. By allowing all speech, the line becomes very clear. I agree that violence of any kind must be illegal and condemned, but that is a separate issue to free speech. By allowing free speech, I disagree that we are "showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others". In fact, I feel as if we are doing the opposite. Look at the free speech rally in Boston last month. While there were 50 or so (I can't remember the specifics) free speech protestors, some (not all) of them being white supremacists, there were tens of thousands of counter-protesters there as well proving to the city and the world that Boston will not tolerate hate and that we are a progressive and love filled city. By silencing the opposition, you are helping prove their point, but by letting them speak and then speaking back with hundreds of thousands times more force, you can show that they are just wrong.

Thank you CoryInTheHouse, that was extremely well said. The thing about our Constitutional rights is that either everyone has them, or no one does at all. If we only allow a certain group of people to protest and not others, that’s not just immoral but what’s to stop the government from taking away more of our rights? Despite whether we agree with an organization’s goals or not, we need to have a fair policy so that everyone’s voices will be protected.

Also, the Alt-Right’s goals are controversial because of their advocacy for white supremacy. However, anyone who believes that their culture is the best is considered supremacy. Not only is there white supremacy, but there’s also black supremacy, latino supremacy etc. For example, Malcolm X was part of the Nation of Islam. The Nation promoted black supremacy and advocated for the separation of black and white Americans. It even rejected the civil rights movement because of its emphasis on integration. Not to mention, Malcom X advocated for equality and if it could be obtained through peaceful means then great. If not, then he advocated by any means including violence as seen in his speech in 1964 called The ballot or the bullet. Whenever people of color are celebrating their culture, it’s seen as pride, however when white people do the same thing, they’re labeled as racists and bigots. It’s a double standard when people say that Alt-Right shouldn’t be allowed to protest. Either disregard pride in race as a whole, or let everyone celebrate it under the same conditions.

Avatar
Hermione
Posts: 15

Originally posted by CoryInTheHouse on September 16, 2017 16:40

Originally posted by Hermione on September 16, 2017 13:35

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 22:32

Originally posted by Mister on September 14, 2017 22:21

I believe in the first amendment right as much as the next person. I believe that everyone should be able to voice their opinions if they would like to be heard. However, I don't believe that if you are entitled to respect or credibility if your opinions are either hurtful or damaging to others. The fundamental flaw with the neo-nazi and KKK rhetoric is that even though they pledge their first amendment rights, under the first amendment: Individuals are entitled to rights involving freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, their rhetoric pledges to hurt others in an attempt to deprive them of their rights as human beings, and that is unacceptable.

But if we deprive one citizen of their rights, what's to stop the government from depriving everyone of their rights? We can't choose and pick who to give Constitutional rights to or else the line between freedom and oppression will slowly erode.

However, if we allow them to continue to terrorize the lives of others and say publicly that people are going to have to die to meet their agenda then whose rights are we really protecting. Mister has a point do we continue to let people who have a clear intent to hurt others get away with saying and acting on hate? Maybe the government shouldn't deprive people of those rights and instead the people of a certain town or city in which these protests are happening should decide if they want them to happen. Obviously, there is not a definite answer but we cannot allow people to go out on the streets and say things like "jews will not replace us" or other Nazi or terriost affiliated slogans. Because if we do we are showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others. Instead of moving forward and progressing we are being held back by people who are afraid of the future and where it will leave them. Ever heard of this statement (I do not intend to write this with the intent of insulting anyone): Why would White people be afraid to become minorities if they did not already see how minorities are being treated in this country? Thus I believe that the first amendment right is one of the most important. But at what point does granting that right to certain individuals hinder the rights of others?

I think that free speech, violence, and protesting have to be looked at separately when it comes to events like Charlottesville. I agree with you on the point that the United States cannot allow people to terrorize the lives of citizens. However, I believe that terrorism can only extend to acts of violence. So yes the murder and all other violence in Charlottesville was terrorism and illegal, but the fact that there were racists there advocating for white supremacy, is a separate issue. Our freedom of speech must extend to everyone, no matter how disgusting their beliefs are. Once you start silencing a group of people, the line is suddenly blurred as to what is okay and what is not. This creates a precedent for other free speech rights being taken away from other groups. By allowing all speech, the line becomes very clear. I agree that violence of any kind must be illegal and condemned, but that is a separate issue to free speech. By allowing free speech, I disagree that we are "showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others". In fact, I feel as if we are doing the opposite. Look at the free speech rally in Boston last month. While there were 50 or so (I can't remember the specifics) free speech protestors, some (not all) of them being white supremacists, there were tens of thousands of counter-protesters there as well proving to the city and the world that Boston will not tolerate hate and that we are a progressive and love filled city. By silencing the opposition, you are helping prove their point, but by letting them speak and then speaking back with hundreds of thousands times more force, you can show that they are just wrong.

CoryintheHouse, I definitely understand your point that we shouldn't silence any group because that can blur the lines of who is allowed to voice their beliefs. However, I respectfully disagree with the fact that violence and free speech are two different issues, specifically in this case. During the video, one of the leaders of the Charlottesville protest said that his group was willing to use violence to reach their goals. He publicly stated that he and his members would use violence, and he also brought 2 handguns and 2 Aks with him. If we know that these people are willing to utilize violence to get to their means then its not simply a free speech or violence issue because the next time they apply for a permit, the city will know that they carry these weapons and that they do not care how many people will get hurt. So then the question is does the city still allow them to practice free speech if they carry around weapons and will get violent if provoked by counter-protesters.

Also, I believe the situation in Boston is different. Boston is a liberal city with a large population of POC. The amount of people who did not tolerate the hate was breathtaking. However, not every city in this country is that liberal or is able to speak back against this hatred and bigotry. So do we allow those people to walk through those cities with weapons and little regard for human life if we know their agenda. I don't think we should, I believe that by carrying such an extreme view that threatens the lives of others and not caring if they hurt others, they forfeit their free speech.

But if there is a group with these views but no clear evidence of any violence or intent to harm others then whatever the views I agree they should be able to practice their right.


Avatar
Hermione
Posts: 15

Originally posted by error404 on September 16, 2017 21:26

Originally posted by CoryInTheHouse on September 16, 2017 16:40

Originally posted by Hermione on September 16, 2017 13:35

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 22:32

Originally posted by Mister on September 14, 2017 22:21

I believe in the first amendment right as much as the next person. I believe that everyone should be able to voice their opinions if they would like to be heard. However, I don't believe that if you are entitled to respect or credibility if your opinions are either hurtful or damaging to others. The fundamental flaw with the neo-nazi and KKK rhetoric is that even though they pledge their first amendment rights, under the first amendment: Individuals are entitled to rights involving freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, their rhetoric pledges to hurt others in an attempt to deprive them of their rights as human beings, and that is unacceptable.

But if we deprive one citizen of their rights, what's to stop the government from depriving everyone of their rights? We can't choose and pick who to give Constitutional rights to or else the line between freedom and oppression will slowly erode.

However, if we allow them to continue to terrorize the lives of others and say publicly that people are going to have to die to meet their agenda then whose rights are we really protecting. Mister has a point do we continue to let people who have a clear intent to hurt others get away with saying and acting on hate? Maybe the government shouldn't deprive people of those rights and instead the people of a certain town or city in which these protests are happening should decide if they want them to happen. Obviously, there is not a definite answer but we cannot allow people to go out on the streets and say things like "jews will not replace us" or other Nazi or terriost affiliated slogans. Because if we do we are showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others. Instead of moving forward and progressing we are being held back by people who are afraid of the future and where it will leave them. Ever heard of this statement (I do not intend to write this with the intent of insulting anyone): Why would White people be afraid to become minorities if they did not already see how minorities are being treated in this country? Thus I believe that the first amendment right is one of the most important. But at what point does granting that right to certain individuals hinder the rights of others?

I think that free speech, violence, and protesting have to be looked at separately when it comes to events like Charlottesville. I agree with you on the point that the United States cannot allow people to terrorize the lives of citizens. However, I believe that terrorism can only extend to acts of violence. So yes the murder and all other violence in Charlottesville was terrorism and illegal, but the fact that there were racists there advocating for white supremacy, is a separate issue. Our freedom of speech must extend to everyone, no matter how disgusting their beliefs are. Once you start silencing a group of people, the line is suddenly blurred as to what is okay and what is not. This creates a precedent for other free speech rights being taken away from other groups. By allowing all speech, the line becomes very clear. I agree that violence of any kind must be illegal and condemned, but that is a separate issue to free speech. By allowing free speech, I disagree that we are "showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others". In fact, I feel as if we are doing the opposite. Look at the free speech rally in Boston last month. While there were 50 or so (I can't remember the specifics) free speech protestors, some (not all) of them being white supremacists, there were tens of thousands of counter-protesters there as well proving to the city and the world that Boston will not tolerate hate and that we are a progressive and love filled city. By silencing the opposition, you are helping prove their point, but by letting them speak and then speaking back with hundreds of thousands times more force, you can show that they are just wrong.

Thank you CoryInTheHouse, that was extremely well said. The thing about our Constitutional rights is that either everyone has them, or no one does at all. If we only allow a certain group of people to protest and not others, that’s not just immoral but what’s to stop the government from taking away more of our rights? Despite whether we agree with an organization’s goals or not, we need to have a fair policy so that everyone’s voices will be protected.

Also, the Alt-Right’s goals are controversial because of their advocacy for white supremacy. However, anyone who believes that their culture is the best is considered supremacy. Not only is there white supremacy, but there’s also black supremacy, latino supremacy etc. For example, Malcolm X was part of the Nation of Islam. The Nation promoted black supremacy and advocated for the separation of black and white Americans. It even rejected the civil rights movement because of its emphasis on integration. Not to mention, Malcom X advocated for equality and if it could be obtained through peaceful means then great. If not, then he advocated by any means including violence as seen in his speech in 1964 called The ballot or the bullet. Whenever people of color are celebrating their culture, it’s seen as pride, however when white people do the same thing, they’re labeled as racists and bigots. It’s a double standard when people say that Alt-Right shouldn’t be allowed to protest. Either disregard pride in race as a whole, or let everyone celebrate it under the same conditions.

I apologize ahead of time for my bluntness. I respectfully do not think that the comparison you are making is justified. These white supremacists and neo nazis are NOT celebrating their culture. I have never seen a white person celebrate their culture by yelling out statements affiliated with the Nazis and other terrorist groups (including the KKK). These people are telling other people of this country that they do not belong here and if needed these supremacists will cleanse America from them. You CANNOT disregard race when these people say that they want one ethno state.

Regarding your comparison of this white supremacist/Neo Nazi/KKK group and the Nation of Islam, these are two very different situations. The Nation of Islam was advocating for two separate states not only because of Black Supremacy but because they believed and believe now, this which is from their website "Since we cannot get along with them in peace and equality, after giving them 400 years of our sweat and blood and receiving in return some of the worst treatment human beings have ever experienced, we believe our contributions to this land and the suffering forced upon us by white America, justifies our demand for complete separation in a state or territory of our own." I do not support nor agree with their beliefs but their actions are caused by centuries of slavery. They simply do not believe that their former slave owners or their offsprings will ever see them as equals or treat them as such.

Their beliefs are driven by years of discrimination and racism and unlike the beliefs of the White Supremacists. They do not believe in cleansing this country so that it will only include Black people. On their website they also state that " As long as we are not allowed to establish a state or territory of our own, we demand not only equal justice under the laws of the United States, but equal employment opportunities–NOW!" This group is able to see a future in America as long as they do not have to continue to face racism. Again, I do not support their beliefs nor claim that every single one of them is justified but regarding your statement this is what they say about the separate states on their website. This the complete opposite of the White Supremacists that you claim were celebrating their culture. On the American Nazi Party website it clearly states this " "HOW" do you think a White MINORITY will be TREATED - once it's an established fact? Do you think that life for your children, and their children will be "business as usual"? " These people are terrified of becoming the minority in the country as is predicted by around 2040 because they see how they treat minorities so they do not want to be on the receiving end of their own treatment. They claim to only want to protect the future of their children because they believe being minority is the worst thing possible.

So NO they are not celebrating their so called culture. These supremacists are protesting the fact that soon they will no longer be the majority race. Thus, NO there is no double standard because these situations are so different. Neither of them are celebrating their culture but advocating for what they believe is right. However the Nation of Islam is not threatening the lives of others because they fear becoming the minority. Whilst, these supremacists are doing just that and they do not care who they have to hurt in order to get to their agenda.

So again I respectfully say that this was a horrible comparison you can't compare people who are fighting for their own human rights with those of people who want to take human rights away from others out of fear of people treating them as they treat others. Also POC, specifically Black people, celebrating their culture is pride because their culture and identity was taken away from them for centuries.

AGAIN YOU CAN NOT DISREGARD RACE when these supremacists were not celebrating their culture but clearly advocating for the end of other cultures. So no they cannot as you claim "celebrate" it under the same conditions. On a moral ground a comparison of this people with any other group advocating for their civil or human rights is wrong and unjustified. Because these people aren't protesting because they are being deprived of rights but because they don't want others to ever have the rights they have.

Avatar
Francis
Posts: 8

They had a right to be there, they were given a permit, and had a right to march. They did not have a right to kill anyone. I hate Nazis and white supremacists, but you can't stop them from demonstrating. If we stop them from demonstrating and exercising their free speech, we prove them right. If we let them talk, then we can let them talk themselves out of favor, and their claims that the left is violating their constitutional rights won't have a leg to stand on.

This is why I'm not a huge fan of Antifa. Antifa gives white supremacists a reason to complain about their rights being violated. I was briefly at the protest of the rally in Boston Common, and while there were some bad people speaking there, and I heard some offensive chanting, they did nothing to warrant the backlash caused by the Antifa members present. We should never be in a situation where we are ceding the moral high ground to Neo-Nazis.

Avatar
freemanjud
Posts: 23

Agreed

Originally posted by Francis on September 17, 2017 12:21

Antifa gives white supremacists a reason to complain about their rights being violated. I was briefly at the protest of the rally in Boston Common, and while there were some bad people speaking there, and I heard some offensive chanting, they did nothing to warrant the backlash caused by the Antifa members present. We should never be in a situation where we are ceding the moral high ground to Neo-Nazis.

I think this is an extremely important point, Francis. And I wonder about this: if non-violence is the preferred means of protest (and do you agree with that?), then do we have to accept the notion that when a non-violent protest meets a violent one, someone(s) in the non-violent protest may be injured or killed, a la Heather Heyer. In other words, is that what you are in effect signing up for when you sign up to non-violently protest? It's a risk, to be sure.

Your final point--"We should never be in a situation where we are ceding the moral high round to Neo-Nazis [et al]"--is extremely well-said and I agree wholeheartedly.

Avatar
error404
Posts: 21

Originally posted by Hermione on September 16, 2017 23:11

Originally posted by error404 on September 16, 2017 21:26

Originally posted by CoryInTheHouse on September 16, 2017 16:40

Originally posted by Hermione on September 16, 2017 13:35

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 22:32

Originally posted by Mister on September 14, 2017 22:21

I believe in the first amendment right as much as the next person. I believe that everyone should be able to voice their opinions if they would like to be heard. However, I don't believe that if you are entitled to respect or credibility if your opinions are either hurtful or damaging to others. The fundamental flaw with the neo-nazi and KKK rhetoric is that even though they pledge their first amendment rights, under the first amendment: Individuals are entitled to rights involving freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, their rhetoric pledges to hurt others in an attempt to deprive them of their rights as human beings, and that is unacceptable.

But if we deprive one citizen of their rights, what's to stop the government from depriving everyone of their rights? We can't choose and pick who to give Constitutional rights to or else the line between freedom and oppression will slowly erode.

However, if we allow them to continue to terrorize the lives of others and say publicly that people are going to have to die to meet their agenda then whose rights are we really protecting. Mister has a point do we continue to let people who have a clear intent to hurt others get away with saying and acting on hate? Maybe the government shouldn't deprive people of those rights and instead the people of a certain town or city in which these protests are happening should decide if they want them to happen. Obviously, there is not a definite answer but we cannot allow people to go out on the streets and say things like "jews will not replace us" or other Nazi or terriost affiliated slogans. Because if we do we are showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others. Instead of moving forward and progressing we are being held back by people who are afraid of the future and where it will leave them. Ever heard of this statement (I do not intend to write this with the intent of insulting anyone): Why would White people be afraid to become minorities if they did not already see how minorities are being treated in this country? Thus I believe that the first amendment right is one of the most important. But at what point does granting that right to certain individuals hinder the rights of others?

I think that free speech, violence, and protesting have to be looked at separately when it comes to events like Charlottesville. I agree with you on the point that the United States cannot allow people to terrorize the lives of citizens. However, I believe that terrorism can only extend to acts of violence. So yes the murder and all other violence in Charlottesville was terrorism and illegal, but the fact that there were racists there advocating for white supremacy, is a separate issue. Our freedom of speech must extend to everyone, no matter how disgusting their beliefs are. Once you start silencing a group of people, the line is suddenly blurred as to what is okay and what is not. This creates a precedent for other free speech rights being taken away from other groups. By allowing all speech, the line becomes very clear. I agree that violence of any kind must be illegal and condemned, but that is a separate issue to free speech. By allowing free speech, I disagree that we are "showing that America is still a country full of people who do learn from history but rather want to continue the pattern of discrimination and hate towards others". In fact, I feel as if we are doing the opposite. Look at the free speech rally in Boston last month. While there were 50 or so (I can't remember the specifics) free speech protestors, some (not all) of them being white supremacists, there were tens of thousands of counter-protesters there as well proving to the city and the world that Boston will not tolerate hate and that we are a progressive and love filled city. By silencing the opposition, you are helping prove their point, but by letting them speak and then speaking back with hundreds of thousands times more force, you can show that they are just wrong.

Thank you CoryInTheHouse, that was extremely well said. The thing about our Constitutional rights is that either everyone has them, or no one does at all. If we only allow a certain group of people to protest and not others, that’s not just immoral but what’s to stop the government from taking away more of our rights? Despite whether we agree with an organization’s goals or not, we need to have a fair policy so that everyone’s voices will be protected.

Also, the Alt-Right’s goals are controversial because of their advocacy for white supremacy. However, anyone who believes that their culture is the best is considered supremacy. Not only is there white supremacy, but there’s also black supremacy, latino supremacy etc. For example, Malcolm X was part of the Nation of Islam. The Nation promoted black supremacy and advocated for the separation of black and white Americans. It even rejected the civil rights movement because of its emphasis on integration. Not to mention, Malcom X advocated for equality and if it could be obtained through peaceful means then great. If not, then he advocated by any means including violence as seen in his speech in 1964 called The ballot or the bullet. Whenever people of color are celebrating their culture, it’s seen as pride, however when white people do the same thing, they’re labeled as racists and bigots. It’s a double standard when people say that Alt-Right shouldn’t be allowed to protest. Either disregard pride in race as a whole, or let everyone celebrate it under the same conditions.

I apologize ahead of time for my bluntness. I respectfully do not think that the comparison you are making is justified. These white supremacists and neo nazis are NOT celebrating their culture. I have never seen a white person celebrate their culture by yelling out statements affiliated with the Nazis and other terrorist groups (including the KKK). These people are telling other people of this country that they do not belong here and if needed these supremacists will cleanse America from them. You CANNOT disregard race when these people say that they want one ethno state.

Regarding your comparison of this white supremacist/Neo Nazi/KKK group and the Nation of Islam, these are two very different situations. The Nation of Islam was advocating for two separate states not only because of Black Supremacy but because they believed and believe now, this which is from their website "Since we cannot get along with them in peace and equality, after giving them 400 years of our sweat and blood and receiving in return some of the worst treatment human beings have ever experienced, we believe our contributions to this land and the suffering forced upon us by white America, justifies our demand for complete separation in a state or territory of our own." I do not support nor agree with their beliefs but their actions are caused by centuries of slavery. They simply do not believe that their former slave owners or their offsprings will ever see them as equals or treat them as such.

Their beliefs are driven by years of discrimination and racism and unlike the beliefs of the White Supremacists. They do not believe in cleansing this country so that it will only include Black people. On their website they also state that " As long as we are not allowed to establish a state or territory of our own, we demand not only equal justice under the laws of the United States, but equal employment opportunities–NOW!" This group is able to see a future in America as long as they do not have to continue to face racism. Again, I do not support their beliefs nor claim that every single one of them is justified but regarding your statement this is what they say about the separate states on their website. This the complete opposite of the White Supremacists that you claim were celebrating their culture. On the American Nazi Party website it clearly states this " "HOW" do you think a White MINORITY will be TREATED - once it's an established fact? Do you think that life for your children, and their children will be "business as usual"? " These people are terrified of becoming the minority in the country as is predicted by around 2040 because they see how they treat minorities so they do not want to be on the receiving end of their own treatment. They claim to only want to protect the future of their children because they believe being minority is the worst thing possible.

So NO they are not celebrating their so called culture. These supremacists are protesting the fact that soon they will no longer be the majority race. Thus, NO there is no double standard because these situations are so different. Neither of them are celebrating their culture but advocating for what they believe is right. However the Nation of Islam is not threatening the lives of others because they fear becoming the minority. Whilst, these supremacists are doing just that and they do not care who they have to hurt in order to get to their agenda.

So again I respectfully say that this was a horrible comparison you can't compare people who are fighting for their own human rights with those of people who want to take human rights away from others out of fear of people treating them as they treat others. Also POC, specifically Black people, celebrating their culture is pride because their culture and identity was taken away from them for centuries.

AGAIN YOU CAN NOT DISREGARD RACE when these supremacists were not celebrating their culture but clearly advocating for the end of other cultures. So no they cannot as you claim "celebrate" it under the same conditions. On a moral ground a comparison of this people with any other group advocating for their civil or human rights is wrong and unjustified. Because these people aren't protesting because they are being deprived of rights but because they don't want others to ever have the rights they have.

Hermione, this is nothing personal, I also respect you as a person.

  1. How is the Alt-Right’s goal to cleanse the US any different from the Nation’s goal to separate the black and white Americans? They’re both discriminating against one race or another. Just because slavery happened, it doesn’t make it less racist for black people to create a separate state.
  2. You say that “the Nation of Islam is not threatening the lives of others...Whilst, these supremacists are doing just that.” Throughout the past few years, thousands of BLM protests have sprouted up across the country. Truth of the matter is, no matter what side people are on, both sides like Antifa or BLM and the Alt-Right are both violent in their protests. Last night in St. Louis there was a protest in response to a cop’s acquittal over the shooting of a black man. Demonstrators began to clash with police and smash storefronts, and almost every store loop was destroyed as the violence got out of hand.

There is fault on both sides for instigating violent demonstrations, and just focusing on the Alt-Right’s decision to bring guns to the protest, when it’s legal for them to open carry, is unfairly extorting the facts. Everyone still has the fundamental right to protest.

Avatar
Mark Sloan
Posts: 6

Originally posted by OceanEscape19 on September 15, 2017 06:52

Originally posted by error404 on September 14, 2017 21:29

One question brought up during class by Ms. Freeman was whether the protesters should’ve been allowed to conduct their gathering.


Even though I don’t agree with the Alt-Right’s goals, I do believe that they have a right to access their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech, their right to assembly and their right to petition. Every single person in America have their Constitutional rights protected, and if the protesters were not allowed to convene just because they had a radical agenda, we would be violating the foundation that America was built on which is the freedom of being able to think for ourselves. Though their goals are controversial and despicable, not allowing them to have protested would have infringed upon their rights as citizens of the U.S.

I agree that we can't stop their right to protest but at the start of the video police only surrounded them after pushing and shoving. I don't believe that any mass protest should be allowed to carry torches or have concealed weapons. At one point the organizer said "we all have pistols" or something if the sort and I think it encourages and catalyzes Violence. Also I wasn't sure if this but were the police or other protestors maxing them, that was also a way that the protestors escalated.

I actually looked this up and there are laws and licenses that allow for people to carry a concealed weapon. "A valid concealed handgun permit or license issued by another state shall be valid in the Commonwealth if the person is at least 21 years of age, the issuing state can provide verification and that states law are adequate to prevent issuance of a permit by persons who would be prohibited in Virginia." So I do agree that weapons should not be brought to protests and that violence can become deadly that way but they also had the right to carry the weapons.

posts 16 - 30 of 30