Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 18, 2017

Once again, the ACLU is wrestling with how to respond to a far-right movement in the U.S. whose rising visibility is prompting concerns from elected officials and activists. In response to the deadly violence at a rally in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, the ACLU's three California affiliates released a statement Wednesday declaring that "white supremacist violence is not free speech." The national organization said Thursday that it would not represent white supremacist groups that want to demonstrate with guns. That stance is a new interpretation of the ACLU's official position that reasonable gun regulation does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That sounds pretty reasonable. And that clears the ACLU out of the way for a crackdown on armed confrontation, which is coming.

Because nobody wants this, except a few morons on the DR.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-18 02:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Can not wait for
NULLI
to decry the "left"

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-18 02:21 AM | Reply

#2 What's wrong with understanding that communism is an existential threat to the Republic, to free thought, to freedom, to your mother, to apple pie, to Dunkirk, etc....

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-18 02:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What's wrong with understanding"

Not sure you're qualified to speak on the subject.

Remind me which planet you're from?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-18 02:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#4 On Nibiru, we communicate telepathically. That's how we can see the Reptoids. Look, I've made a lot of personal sacrifices to come here and fight for your freedom, like having to wear a man-suit every day just to fit in and having to endure the attacks of Reptoid cut-outs like like Corky. Try arguing with a war-mongering bank puppet every day!

It hasn't been easy.

But you can be saved. It is worth the effort. And one day, when mankind has free access to LSD like all being on Nibiru, Galactic peace will become a reality.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-18 02:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

holy ----. i was contemplating this historic occurrence.
thanks for posting!

#6 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-08-18 03:19 AM | Reply

#5
when do we go?

#7 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-08-18 03:20 AM | Reply

#7 The loading will begin soon.

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-18 03:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#8
i keep asking you that, don't i?

#9 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-08-18 03:45 AM | Reply

I think humanity is breaking out of it's cage. Human I.Q ("g", or "general intelligence") has been increasing since it has been measured. And it's damn evident in politics. And deaths due to war have fallen dramatically over the thousands of years. It used to be that in the stone age that 30% of skeletons had battle wounds. Today it's less than 0.5%.

Stupid, violent people are slowly but surely going away. Mankind has domesticated itself, and civilization is spreading.

Unless the biosphere gets destroyed in the next 500 years, I predict eventual unification and kum-bay-ya.

#10 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-18 03:57 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

This is the right decision. Showing up for a protest armed to the teeth is not speech. It's an attempt to intimidate. The ACLU should not defend acts that are so hostile to the free speech of others.

#11 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-18 09:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As long as it's peaceful yes it's free speech. It also is great advertisement that says I have a very small winky so this is my winky substitute.

#12 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-18 10:13 AM | Reply

Will the ACLU hold all groups to this standard?

#13 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-08-18 10:54 PM | Reply

#13 Yep. Need you even ask?

#14 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-19 12:01 AM | Reply

This is the right decision. Showing up for a protest armed to the teeth is not speech.

Sure about that? What if it's perfectly legal to show up armed to the teeth?

Side track, it was the ACLUCA that issued the initial statement about "armed to the teeth." A state that pretty much prohibits public carry of weapons. The weapons carrying seen in VA is prohibited in CA. Damn that federalism ---- [/snark].

It's an attempt to intimidate.

Your sensitive feeling are noted.

The ACLU should not defend acts that are so hostile to the free speech of others.

The ACLU should do as it has always done. Advocate for free speech, warts and all.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-19 12:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the ACLU has reassessed their position and will no longer "defend groups that wanted to incite violence or march "armed to the teeth" such as those who help the "unite the right" rally."

www.newsweek.com

'Bout time, says here.

POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-08-18 04:51 PM

Now if judges will refrain from issuing permits to known violent protest marchers, or issue prior restraint orders, we might have a solution.

.

- Reptoid cut-outs like like Corky.

Have little regard for Nazi coddling Trump voters with Alex Jones Complex.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-19 12:47 AM | Reply

Now if judges will refrain from issuing permits to known violent protest marchers, or issue prior restraint orders, we might have a solution.

If only judges would rule the way I want to then everything would be unicorns and rainbows.

It don't work that way. Your tears to the contrary.

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-19 01:10 AM | Reply

I find nothing wrong with the ACLU deciding that defending the rights of armed people to march with torches shouting racist slogans is not what they intend to do. As in most things, there is a limit to how extreme they should be in defending the rights of those denied permits to threaten the community and that is what those Nazis said they were intending to do. The ACLU should not be defending those who would kill every member of the ACLU if they ever got their way.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-19 09:08 AM | Reply

Most of us agree that violence and threats of violence aren't speech.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-19 11:08 AM | Reply

But some of think it's ok to punch Nazis or Communists.

#20 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-19 11:09 AM | Reply

Wow! Look at all the Nazi lovers on the DR.

HeliumRat. Keep up fighting for a safe space for Nazis.

You make white supremacists, and Jew haters, proud.

What's the chant? "6 million wasn't enough"?

Using the first amendment to shield hate and intolerance is a new low for Trumplicans.

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 02:31 PM | Reply

Using the first amendment to shield hate and intolerance is a new low for Trumplicans.

Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 02:31 PM | Reply

Hey I support free speech where ever it is. What does that make me???

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-19 02:34 PM | Reply

Repost from another thread.

"There are not two sides to bigotry, and there are not two sides to hatred. And if you choose to march with a flag that symbolizes the slaughter of millions of people, there are not two sides to that."

www.yahoo.com

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 02:34 PM | Reply

Other groups have similar death counts and they are allowed to assemble without molestation. Why do communists get a free pass?

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-19 02:37 PM | Reply

Hey I support free speech where ever it is. What does that make me???
#22 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-08-19 02:34 PM | FLAG:

I'm going with, naive.

This isn't about freedom of speech.

This is about Nazis.

Thank god all WW2 vets have passed away. The disgrace of America allowing Nazis to march on our soil would have killed them.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 02:40 PM | Reply

This isn't about freedom of speech.

This is about Nazis.

Thank god all WW2 vets have passed away. The disgrace of America allowing Nazis to march on our soil would have killed them.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's the same arguments that was used during Snyder v Phelps. Haste speech is protected speech.

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-19 02:42 PM | Reply

Other groups have similar death counts and they are allowed to assemble without molestation.

Who are the random "other groups"? The US military?? Who?

Why do communists get a free pass?

I don't know. Why are Trumpublicans so in love with Putin??

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 02:43 PM | Reply

It's the same arguments that was used during Snyder v Phelps. Haste speech is protected speech.

Nazis are Nazis.

At least now I know which side of the isle you're sitting on.

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 02:46 PM | Reply

At least now I know which side of the isle you're sitting on.

Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 02:46 PM | Reply

Yep the First Amendment.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-19 02:48 PM | Reply

Yep the First Amendment.

Way to hide behind the first amendment.

You're condoning hate. You're allowing it to find its voice and spread its message.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 03:01 PM | Reply

Way to hide behind the first amendment.

You're condoning hate. You're allowing it to find its voice and spread its message.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 03:01 PM | Reply

Better pack a lunch because this isn't my first rodeo regarding supporting first amendment free speech rights. I got the same grief when I supported Fred Phelps and his merry band of misfits right to say what they wanted so beware.

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-19 03:08 PM | Reply

"The national organization said Thursday that it would not represent white supremacist groups that want to demonstrate with guns."

Why would they even bother in the first place? We have the NRA for that, a far more powerful organization.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 03:11 PM | Reply

Why is this even being cast as a First Amendment issue?

Has anyone even suggested that open carry mobs with torches can't chant Nazi slogans?

This is just the ACLU choosing which battles to fight.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 03:12 PM | Reply

"Hey I support free speech where ever it is. What does that make me???"

Deaf?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 03:14 PM | Reply

"Hey I support free speech where ever it is. What does that make me???"

Deaf?

Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 03:14 PM | Reply

Huh????

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-19 03:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I got the same grief when I supported Fred Phelps and his merry band of misfits right to say what they wanted so beware."

Beware of what? You're gonna go on like a broken record about people have the right to protest, while never discussing the message of the protest?

Beware of "business as usual" from you.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 03:18 PM | Reply

Beware of what? You're gonna go on like a broken record about people have the right to protest, while never discussing the message of the protest?

Beware of "business as usual" from you.

Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 03:18 PM | Reply

Their message is horrific and barbaric but by God they have a First Amendment right to express it on the public square.

#37 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-19 03:20 PM | Reply

I'm siding with Laura on this one.

I'm more concerned about people who profess to be so open-minded and anti-nazi and continuously dropping bombs on brown people half a world away.

I could ------- care less about somebody flying a confederate flag outside their house when an innocent wedding party is being bombed by one of our bombs in the name of security.

I'd rather have a statue of some white racist ------- from the 19th century in my front yard than have my country continue it's nonstop intervention overseas.

I have my priorities. But acting like a baby and throwing a hissy fit and calling for censorship when a gaggle of khaki wearing alpha male wannabe hoist tiki torches in Adloph Hitler's name is not my style. Especially when we're killing and maiming thousands of people and it doesn't elicit the same type of outrage.

#38 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-08-19 03:21 PM | Reply

"I'd rather have a statue of some white racist ------- from the 19th century in my front yard than have my country continue it's nonstop intervention overseas. "

That choice is not being offered.

How about you just stick to the actual issue, no?

Congratulations though on advancing past the "denial" stage and entering into the "bargaining" stage of the Kübler-Ross model!

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"calling for censorship"

?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 03:33 PM | Reply

Considering that the ACLU had record donations from Dems after BLOTUS was elected, this is not a surprise. The ACLU also knows on which side their bread is buttered. Liberals are truly the fans of free speech. I'm not sure how defending the free-speech rights of groups that wish to destroy the nation and limit other people's rights is the proper thing for the ACLU to do. It's almost like a Jewish lawyer defending Hitler. The Nazis would do away with the ACLU in a heartbeat if they could.

Legal or not, any entity that grants a permit for heavily armed people to demonstrate hate is asking for trouble. According to Terry McAuliffe, the police didn't intervene in the Nazi led violence because the Nazis outgunned them. I think McAuliffe was trying to redirect some of the anger targeted at the police for not doing their jobs. I'm not sure why they didn't bring out the SWAT tanks the way they did in Ferguson, but I'm guessing racism might have played a role. Based on the weapons caches found around the city, it's obvious the Nazis came ready for a war, so maybe the police took the right approach.

#41 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2017-08-19 03:33 PM | Reply

- hoist tiki torches

And murder innocent counter-protests with their cars.

Violence as speech isn't a guarantee, and judges should use better digression by not issuing permits to known violent marchers, with or without guns, such as those of Richard Spencer.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-19 03:58 PM | Reply

" The ACLU also knows on which side their bread is buttered."

There's butter still to be had, after they defended Rush Limbaugh?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 04:18 PM | Reply

"Legal or not, any entity that grants a permit for heavily armed people to demonstrate hate is asking for trouble."

So it seems like you'd be okay with the ACLU not trying to cast this as a First Amendment issue...

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 04:19 PM | Reply

Better pack a lunch because this isn't my first rodeo
#31 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-08-19 03:08 PM | FLAG:

So you've shilled for the Nazis before. Good to know.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-19 05:20 PM | Reply

I'm not sure how defending the free-speech rights of groups that wish to destroy the nation and limit other people's rights is the proper thing for the ACLU to do.

I don't think the ACLU should support Armed Nazis, Armed White Supremacists, Armed Muslim extremists or Armed New Black Panthers. Armed anybody who wants to destroy the nation and limit other people's rights.

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-19 05:28 PM | Reply

I'm unclear on how an assemblage of open carry individuals can be thought of as "peaceable."

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-19 09:56 PM | Reply

Your virtue has been signaled and we admire your wokefulness. It's very brave of you to come out of the closet against white supremacy.

#48 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-20 09:04 AM | Reply

A lack of police protection combined with two groups looking for a fight...

#49 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-20 09:07 AM | Reply

"It's very brave of you to come out of the closet against white supremacy."

Maybe you should try it.

Better question is why you won't simply condemn white supremacy.

Why won't you condemn white supremacy?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-20 12:27 PM | Reply

#44 - I consider what the Nazis did in Charlottesville to be more like shouting fire in a crowded theater, it is likely to get people injured or killed, so no I don't consider that type of gathering or speech to be protected.

#51 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2017-08-20 02:24 PM | Reply

So now they will be like the Better Business Bureau. They don't belong to their own club.

#52 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-08-20 02:32 PM | Reply

Because you disagree so much with their ideas they provoke you? So they must be silenced? Can't you see that restricting speech could be problematic? Allowing speech only within the bounds YOU consider acceptable is not really free speech at all.

#53 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-20 05:26 PM | Reply

Violence isn't free speech. Especially when it is planned violence for which a group like Richard Spencer's Nazis are notorious for committing.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-20 05:30 PM | Reply

Remember, at one time or another practically every Republican president or candidate starting with Ike has been called a racist, a fascist, and/or Nazi. So, boy cried wolf much?

#55 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-20 05:33 PM | Reply

Ike built lots of infrastructure and warned against the M-I complex. The rest were mostly preening corporate whores drunk on power.

The current Republican Pres coddles Nazis, as do some of his supporters, and they appreciate the hell out of it. "Heil Trump!".

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-20 05:59 PM | Reply

--Violence isn't free speech.

Tell it to your SJW pals who say speech--that they don't like--is violence, and are therefore justified in using violence to shut it down.

#57 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-20 06:05 PM | Reply

"say speech--that they don't like--is violence"

You've lost it.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-20 06:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Because you disagree so much with their ideas"

Do you disagree with their ideas?

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-20 06:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Whose ideas? Romney was called a Fascist and Nazi. The words have been abused and lost their meaning. I don't agree with the white supremecists, but I think they should be allowed to assemble peacefully.

#60 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-20 07:18 PM | Reply

= who say speech--that they don't like--is violence

--------. We are talking about Nazi marchers who practice violence as speech wherever they go, not speech one disagrees with as violence.

I take it your degrees aren't in English.

But hey, Richard Spencer and David Duke appreciate your Deflections and Obfuscations in their behalf.

#61 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-20 07:31 PM | Reply

-We are talking about Nazi marchers who practice violence as speech wherever they go

...all 35 of them. But I'm sure they appreciate you making them headline news.

#62 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-08-20 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

An overwhelming police presence should keep them in line and if they step out, come down on them with the full force of law.

#63 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-20 07:40 PM | Reply

#61 | POSTED BY CORKY

Didn't get upset when Ferguson was looted and burned.

#64 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-08-20 07:41 PM | Reply

"Tell it to your SJW pals who say speech--that they don't like--is violence, and are therefore justified in using violence to shut it down.

#57 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-20 06:05 PM | REPLY"

What kind of speech was it when Heather Heyer was run down?

#65 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-08-20 08:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Are we certain the crowd of antfa vigilantes wasn't threatening to Reginald Denny the punk and Heather was in the wrong place?

#66 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-20 09:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Are we certain the crowd of antfa vigilantes wasn't threatening to Reginald Denny the punk and Heather was in the wrong place?

Pretty much, yes.

#67 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-08-20 09:26 PM | Reply

I like freedom of speech threads. It's a rare subject where I am in complete agreement with Laura.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-20 10:00 PM | Reply

So Jeff likes fried taters

#69 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-20 10:49 PM | Reply

"Why won't you condemn white supremacy?"

I saw some meth-heads on the corner this morning. I spent the rest of the day going around haranguing random people and demanding "Why won't you condemn meth and crack?? Drugs are baaad. You must be a meth-head too!"

People tried to tell me my methods were counterproductive and didn't make any sense, but damn it I'm fighting the good fight!

#70 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-08-20 11:01 PM | Reply

"What kind of speech was it when Heather Heyer was run down?"

Nobody's arguing that was speech. That's like if one black Muslim violently attacked people who were counter demonstrating against a gathering of the Nation of Islam or The New Black Panther Party. Should those groups not be allowed to organize?

#71 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-08-20 11:16 PM | Reply

#55
When Adelman invented the Southern strategy to take advantage of white resentment about Civil Rights the Republicans have consistently since used racism to win elections. Lany astute follower of politics would know that.

#72 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-20 11:21 PM | Reply

#71
They should not be prevented from organizing but they also should not be able to be immune to exposure of their racist goals and Fascist dreams.

#73 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-20 11:25 PM | Reply

Violence as speech isn't a guarantee ...

Violence is not speech, it is conduct that most likely violates criminal law. But, of course, we gotta define violence. Legally carrying weapons ain't even close.

[J]udges should use better digression [discretion?] by not issuing permits to known violent marchers, with or without guns, such as those of Richard Spencer.

First, I have no clue who Spencer is, I don't keep up with bigots and racists. However, a glance at his wiki page doesn't reveal conduct that violates criminal law. It shows him expressing views that most consider offensive at best. So what?

Federal trial court judges are bound by Supreme Court and their district's Circuit Court of Appeals precedent. They have no discretion when applying clear legal precedent. The decades old precedent for First Amendment expression is clear in the context of Charlottesville. If you read the links in the Josh Blackman article you posted you would see the legal and factual arguments on both sides and how the court applied the law to the facts.

#74 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-20 11:35 PM | Reply

Armed anybody ...

Why, if it's legal?

... who wants to destroy the nation and limit other people's rights.

Sounds like content restriction, that's strictly prohibited.

#75 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-20 11:51 PM | Reply

I can't help but believe that if we were talking about armed Muslim extremists or the New Black Panthers marching through an American city, chanting hate speech and Allah Akbar, some folks (not all) would be singing a different tune.

#76 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-21 12:01 AM | Reply

#75 Naw, they are allowed to make hilarious fools of themselves. We just need to be better at keeping our fringe groups apart. We can't let this turns into 1932 Germany, where we are going to have to crack down.

#77 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-21 12:05 AM | Reply

What kind of speech was it when Heather Heyer was run down?

That conduct was not speech. It was murder, imo.

#78 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-21 12:23 AM | Reply

Nobody's arguing that was speech. That's like if one black Muslim violently attacked people who were counter demonstrating against a gathering of the Nation of Islam or The New Black Panther Party. Should those groups not be allowed to organize?

Of course killing that lady was not speech. But WTF does the rest of what you wrote have to do with the price of eggs in China?

#79 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-21 12:28 AM | Reply

"I don't agree with the white supremecists, but I think they should be allowed to assemble peacefully."

Okay, is an armed march no more than a peaceable assembly then? Surrounding other protesters, buildings?

You tell me. I lean towards it's something more.

When the protesters surrounded a city bus during wto, they weren't acting legally. That was civil disobedience. Not protected First Amendment conduct.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 01:09 AM | Reply

I can't help but believe that if we were talking about armed [disfavored groups doing stupid chit] some folks (not all) would be singing a different tune.

I'm sure but that does not change the analysis. It's either free speech or not, doesn't matter who said it.

What does legally armed have to do with the price of eggs in China?

#81 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-21 01:15 AM | Reply

Someone else will have to ask Et_Al if an armed march is merely a peaceable assembly, he's chosen to deafen himself to my sensible lay questions.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 01:19 AM | Reply

#82 I guess it depends on the state and municipality. Here in Kick Ass, the capitol of the Deep South, carrying your assault rifle in a street demonstration is allowed. Although that may change if we have to crack down on your violence, comrade snoofy. But only until we round up all of the radicals, and put them on trial. If things go that far.

#83 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-21 01:31 AM | Reply

--------. We are talking about Nazi marchers ...

Yes. They can say WTF they want.

who practice violence as speech wherever they go, not speech one disagrees with as violence.

Well, I'm curious about the violence part, Ms. Heyer excepted.

Help me out.

#84 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-21 01:52 AM | Reply

law.justia.com

prospect.org

Not that it will help.

#85 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-21 12:31 PM | Reply

"#82 I guess it depends on the state and municipality."

Well then clearly we're not talking about a First Amendment issue then.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 12:34 PM | Reply

Democrats hate Republicans.
Republicans hate Democrats.

And, they are both violent with their hate, Plenty of videos on line to confirm it.

If you ever seen their rallies, they are both hate groups and violent.

As for no armed protests? Ever seen someone hit by a sign at a protest?

Yes, it happens. Signs are weapons - therefore, no more sign carrying at protests because you are armed.

Free speech can only be done in safe bubbles.

Strike that - I've read comics and some of those bubbles are dangerous.

#87 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-08-21 12:52 PM | Reply

Fry 'em like bacon - violence in speech.

#88 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-08-21 12:53 PM | Reply

"Signs are weapons - therefore, no more sign carrying at protests because you are armed."

When you have to say something this dumb to make your point, maybe you don't have one.

In the old days, the right-wingers would have joked about librrals banning cars after a liberal got killed by one.

Funny how nobody jokes about that any more.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 12:59 PM | Reply

Democrats hate Republicans.
Republicans hate Democrats.
#87 | Posted by Petrous

Except democrats hate republicans for the cruel things they do to the misfortunate and the planet.

Repubs hate dems for IMAGINARY things their propaganda channels TRICK them into thinking democrats WANT to do.

Anger over REALITY is not equal to anger over FANTASY.

#90 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-21 01:37 PM | Reply

Not that it will help.

It doesn't. I've been telling you about "true threats" for days.

I was asking about specifics of those "who practice violence as speech wherever they go."

You cited Spencer as an example, what has he said that is "violence as speech?"

#91 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-21 02:16 PM | Reply

Pls contact your local Pettifoggers Anonymous office ASAP!

4.bp.blogspot.com

#92 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-21 02:36 PM | Reply

True to form, deflection. That's all ya got.

#93 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-21 03:11 PM | Reply

I wonder how welcomed a Nazi march in America would have been in the 1950s.

I wonder how many people were worried about the Nazi's 1st amendment rights.

Seems like time has helped some Americans forget who the Nazis are and what they stand for.

#94 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-21 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wonder how welcomed a Nazi march in America would have been in the 1950s.

I wonder how many people were worried about the Nazi's 1st amendment rights.

Seems like time has helped some Americans forget who the Nazis are and what they stand for.

Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-21 03:19 PM | Reply

I think it sets a dangerous precedent labeling these miscreants as NAZIS. It diminishes the real horror the REAL Nazis perpetrated upon the Jews.

#95 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think it sets a dangerous precedent labeling these miscreants as NAZIS. It diminishes the real horror the REAL Nazis perpetrated upon the Jews.

#95 | Posted by LauraMohr

These are real nazis, they just don't have a successful leader yet.

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-21 03:34 PM | Reply

By the accounts I read.

There were people at the march carrying flags with swastikas on them.

Whether they believe in the extermination of all non white, non Christian, non heterosexual people. Or whether they were being misguided miscreants is beyond me.

But I'm not as willing to let bygones be bygones.

And I don't believe the first amendment should apply to people who choose to identify as a Nazi.

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-21 03:37 PM | Reply

#95 NW, Laura. These morons planned for 6 months and managed to recruit a few hundred white supremacists, not one of whom I'll bet supports a fascist economy. What I wonder is if the ACLU supports armed antifaschistische. Seems like they're the ones always showing up with weapons.

#98 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-08-21 03:37 PM | Reply

Seems like they're the ones always showing up with weapons.

#98 | Posted by MUSTANG

Were the nazis with torches and guns invisible to you?

Back in WW2 the entire country was "antifaschistische". Now it's just the liberals, as republicans have decided to side with nazis for some twisted reason.

#99 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-21 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

not one of whom I'll bet supports a fascist economy.

Or oral hygiene.

But yea. I'll agree. These morons are too stupid to know what they're supporting. Except white supremacy.

Tell you what Musty. Next time your fellow white supremacists gather to march. Ask them not to carry around Nazi flags. And to cover up their nazi tattoos.

Explain fascism to them and remind them they should dress up as KKK. Because that's the accepted form of white supremacy.

#100 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-21 03:45 PM | Reply

"It diminishes the real horror the REAL Nazis perpetrated upon the Jews."

Mwanwhile, your statement diminishes the seven million non-Jews killed in the Holocaust...

Which diminishes the statue of the purity pony you're riding around on too.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 05:38 PM | Reply

Statue should be stature, but it might be better this way...

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 05:39 PM | Reply

Mwanwhile, your statement diminishes the seven million non-Jews killed in the Holocaust...

Which diminishes the statue of the purity pony you're riding around on too.

Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 05:38 PM | Reply

Name calling now???? Figures.

#103 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-21 05:46 PM | Reply

Pretty funny. Who are the SJW goons going to support?

"BLM member tells Antifa to take their masks off and get out of his city. They punch him and accuse him of being a cop. What a --------."

pjmedia.com

#104 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-21 05:57 PM | Reply

Laura, I'm apeing you, in hopes you'll realize that if it's bad when I do it, it's bad when you do it too.

Admittedly, it's a faint hope.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 05:58 PM | Reply

Who are the SJW goons going to support?
"BLM member tells Antifa to take their masks off and get out of his city. They punch him and accuse him of being a cop."

Great question!

Which side do you support in that scenario???

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-21 06:00 PM | Reply

Nulli and the rwingers @pjmedia.

A match made in wingnut heaven.

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-21 09:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

btw.... ya gotta love the false equivalency yet again between the two groups... someone getting punched is just like someone getting murdered via automobile.

And, of course, that 40,000 person crowd in Boston? Definitely all antifa.

#108 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-21 09:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort