Trump

[TheGlyphstone]

Didn't someone upthread have a link to a study from an international group that said 90+ percent of BLM-related protests were peaceful? That doesnt attribute the non-violent protests to provocateurs, though.

[Skynet]

Didn't someone upthread have a link to a study from an international group that said 90+ percent of BLM-related protests were peaceful? That doesnt attribute the non-violent protests to provocateurs, though.

It was this post. Quoting Time Magazine and the Guardian.

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/05/nearly-all-black-lives-matter-protests-are-peaceful-despite-trump-narrative-report-finds

[Fox Lokison]

This looks relevant

Oh, I'm saving that link, didn't know CSIS did a thing on right wing terrorism!

[Oniya]

Had to do a bit of diving for it - I'd seen references to it, but they're now mostly behind access walls ('register for free' or otherwise).  Caught a glimpse of the organization's name before a pop-up hid it and decided to skip straight to the well-spring.

[Haibane]

Around mid-summer I said that BLM protests are self-evidently peaceful for the most part and any violence was on their fringes and might be conducted by lone wolf types just out for a bit of looting and gain using the protests as a cover plus right wing people deliberately causing trouble to make it look like the BLM movement is violent. For example Rittenhouse would not have killed 2 people and wounded a third if he hadn't chosen to wander about a city in protest with an assault rifle.

[TheHangedOne]

https://twitter.com/mattgertz/status/1327716309782695936

[Callie Del Noire]

https://twitter.com/mattgertz/status/1327716309782695936

How does the phrase go?  ‘Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas’?

Yeah, this is what you get when you don’t punch them in the face. They get bolder.

[Haibane]

Are such attitudes in public legal in America? In the UK that sign holder and anyone associated with them would be arrested for a hate crime and right wing groups we're hearing so much about would be illegal organisations, even if they were not armed. Its just sickening to think that a civilised nation can allow this under the umbrella of freedom of expression. Please tell me that placard is breaking a law.

[Regina Minx]

Are such attitudes in public legal in America?

Hate crime law in the United States tends to act as an enhancer to crimes committed because of hate, not to displays or speech motivated by hate. In Washington DC, where the millionthousand MAGA march happened, they have a FAQ about what is -- and importantly, what isn't -- a hate crime (emphasis mine):

It is important for the community to know what is — and is not — a hate crime. First and foremost, the incident must be a crime. Although that may seem obvious, we must be clear that most speech is not a hate crime, regardless of how offensive it may be. Moreover, a hate crime is not really a specific crime; rather it is a designation that makes available to the court an enhanced penalty if a crime demonstrates the offender’s prejudice or bias based on the actual or perceived traits of the victim. In short, a hate crime is not a crime, but rather a possible motive for a crime. Needless to say, it can be difficult to establish a motive for a crime, and even more difficult for prosecutors to prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore the classification as a bias-related crime is subject to change as an investigation proceeds – even as prosecutors continue an investigation.

In general, in the United States, the First Amendment protects speech; even hateful, bigoted, nakedly racist speech.

[TheGlyphstone]

From what I remember, there is something called the doctrine of imminent violence as well. Details are fuzzy, but 'I hate all Jews' is hateful but not a hate crime, while 'let's go kill some Jews' is a hate crime.

[Beguile's Mistress]

From what I remember, there is something called the doctrine of imminent violence as well. Details are fuzzy, but 'I hate all Jews' is hateful but not a hate crime, while 'let's go kill some Jews' is a hate crime.

Could you be thinking of "Imminent Lawless Action?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

[Haibane]

In general, in the United States, the First Amendment protects speech; even hateful, bigoted, nakedly racist speech.

Wow, that's so badly messed up. I much prefer the Eu designations of "hate crime", it tends to get us a much more mature and reasonable exchange of views. People in the public eye here such as politicians or celebrities, if they wish to stay in the public eye will always be very circumspect about their choice of words in emotive debates. I find that a more acceptable way to live, though that's entirely personal.

One should I suppose ask one's self if placards like we just saw are "decent, fair and reasonable" in terms of a person voicing their opinion. If they are not, it should be against the law to display such banners in a public place, including (for example) your own front window where passers-by on the public highway can see it. One can voice one's opinion clearly and strongly without resorting to that kind of language.

I wonder if any lawsuits might ever push the decency/racist/offensive barrier back a way?

[TheGlyphstone]

Could you be thinking of "Imminent Lawless Action?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Yeah, that's what I was remembering. Not specifically hate speech related, but free speech in general.

Are such attitudes in public legal in America? In the UK that sign holder and anyone associated with them would be arrested for a hate crime and right wing groups we're hearing so much about would be illegal organisations, even if they were not armed. Its just sickening to think that a civilised nation can allow this under the umbrella of freedom of expression. Please tell me that placard is breaking a law.

Whatever happened to that guy who taught his dog to do Nazi salutes, anyways?

[Beguile's Mistress]

He was convicted of a hate crime in 2018.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/03/21/for-weeks-he-trained-a-dog-to-do-a-nazi-salute-the-man-was-just-convicted-of-a-hate-crime/

[Deamonbane]

https://twitter.com/mattgertz/status/1327716309782695936

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

I do believe that sign qualifies under both legal prongs that remove first amendment protections.

[Oniya]

So, Trump's taken another half-step towards accepting reality.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/15/politics/trump-biden-election/index.html

Earlier, he tweeted that Biden won, but in the same sentence made accusations that the win was because of a rigged election.  This marks the first time that he's even attached the word 'won' to anyone in the Presidential election other than himself.

[Regina Minx]

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

The problem with the sign is that unhinged conspiracy theory rantings are usually phrased so incoherently that multiple meanings could be read into it by good faith readers. It could be read as a simple warning of a New World Order coming for Blacks and Indians, or it could be read as racial animus towards Blacks and Indians, suggesting that they're responsible for the NWO. It's sufficiently garbled that any incitement you think it's advocating is ambiguous and muddled at best.

Not saying a prosecutor couldn't or wouldn't try to make a case against the signholder for incitement, but it's far from a sure thing and not the sort of thing that generally gets prosecuted on and of itself.

[Dhi]

Booooo, that crusade didn't even last a week.

[Bibliophilia]

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think saying shit like that isn't generally prosecutable if you're Joe Blow no one listens to or gives a damn about.  However, if someone with genuine influence said something similar in a public forum that could genuinely incite their followers to take criminal action against other people, then it becomes a potential criminal offense.  Especially if their followers then do go out and do something hateful and harmful to others.

I mean, this is very relevant to the current topic, isn't it?  Trump is skirting the line by not actively telling his followers to take any sort of criminal or violent action.  He's carefully avoiding that particular call to action and allowing them to interpret his words, instead of overtly putting himself in the hot seat.

[Aiden]

I think this may need to be its own thread.

But the Proudboys march on DC really pissed me off for multiple reasons. Trump's "Gestapo" spent the weekend attacking people, initiate other losers into their little circle jerk and the police seem indifferent.

[Haibane]

I mean, this is very relevant to the current topic, isn't it?  Trump is skirting the line by not actively telling his followers to take any sort of criminal or violent action.  He's carefully avoiding that particular call to action and allowing them to interpret his words, instead of overtly putting himself in the hot seat.

He told N Carolina citizens to vote twice.

[Haibane]

I think this may need to be its own thread.

Here perhaps?

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=326947.0

[Oniya]

Here perhaps?

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=326947.0

This would be a good place for it.

[Fox Lokison]

Definitely what it was made for, have at it!

[TheHangedOne]

I wonder if any lawsuits might ever push the decency/racist/offensive barrier back a way?

It would take a significantly violent event, with a lot of casualties, to ever get that sort of legislation done. Freedom of Speech is incredibly important to our nations' sense of identity.