If your protest interferes with other's free speech, then your protest is not protected speech. Full stop.

Huh? This is nonsense--Antifa just means anti-fascists, and there are plenty of non-militant anti-fascist orgs.

In fact, today in Nashville Antifa is supposed to be holding a rally for May Day. Guess who's gonna show up to violate their free speech rights?



Hey, it's the alt-right ProudBoys!

I kind of go by how they identify themselves. Oh, and anyone who uses the term "cuck."

So no protests at or near anywhere where someone is going to speak?

and if ppl bus in from out of state with covert weapons after organizing an attack plan online and violently attack a protest, then obv it is the protesters fault. I mean, if they werent protesting non-violently, then these thugs would have never showed up and caused trouble and made the situation dangerous and it would have never infringed on the scheduled speakers speech.

its the same as it ever has been. the same as in any society. the side that you agree with is allowed any sort of violent act and it is the fault of the other side. it is straight out of the playbook of every single fascist and authoritarian from the beginning of time.

at kristalnacht, it was the jews fault for inciting the thugs to brutally attack and murder them and destroy their property. and since it was the jews the fault they were by law required to pay for all of the damage and it was necessary to crack down further on their ability to organize.

the same thing is going on now.

never forget that you are on the side that is attacking peaceful protesters and then blaming them for organizing. never forget that you are on the side of a government that is instituting harsh and capricious penalties for organizing peacefully. never forget that you are in support of a govt that has admitted to looking into ways to crush the speech of its political opposition.

A lot of what you say may be right, but peaceful is a falsehood. This is NOT about peaceful protest.

Protest all you want, but your political enemies get to have their say, always. Interference is not protected speech.

When does it count as interfering? Talking too loudly while they're trying to? Picketing?

There's always going to be push and shove. ETA: in the courts.

Just like there will always be lawyers who defend child molesters in court.

Vigorous protest is great. So long as political enemies get to publicly express their views.

There is a grey area of course. The grey area ends when you prevent the opposition from speaking to people who want to hear it.

Eventually, if political enemies are prevented from expressing their views, they will eventually resort to violence. They're not got to just say, awe shucks and change their minds. In this, the left and right are identical.

Meh, nice strawman argument. Total waste of space.

I know the side I am on. My conscious is clear.

That completely invalidates "If your protest interferes with other's free speech, then your protest is not protected speech. Full stop."

Lets say a group of protesters try to block a road and some dude plows his car right through them. What do you think of that?

I think the dude is evil and should be locked up for life.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.6cb6478d09b3

Keep it up guys. Alienate even more people with your fascist opposition to free speech.

ya Id say that is fake news

Where does it say they will be violating their free speech rights? If antifa are peacefully protesting and the proud boys start to throw fireworks and rocks at them , then yes they are violating their rights.

At the latest Berkely event minus antifa there were anti Trump protesters and nothing turned violent , in fact many on both sides were talking to each other.

I think these days the alt right are race separatists or something a lot of people who were calling themselves that have ditched the label though. The proud boys have black and Hispanic members so I dont think the label can be applied to them.

The march for science, the women's march and the standing rock protesters were all peaceful and have my full backing.

You can go onto the antifa Reddit page where they talk about throwing rocks and fireworks into the crowd , check out Tim Pool's coverage of the event on youtube , both his edited clips and longer unedited ones. Get it out of your head that they were peaceful protesters.

At Anne Coulters cancelled appearance the antifa did not have time to organize as they did not realize that speakers had been found to replace her. Again check out Tim Pool's coverage of that day, Minus antifa there was no violence , just dialogue. No one attacked any peaceful protesters or anyone that was anti Trump, there was only dialogue.

Get it out of your head that anitifa were trying to peacefully protest that day.

I mean, they are fighting for Ann Coulter and love Pat Buchanan, so they are definitely racist, but probably not separatists...yet.

They are also a violent organization. Members get "beat-in," just like a street gang, but...whiter:

Street violence is encouraged:


https://medium.com/@willsommer/the-f...n-7572b31e50f2

Violence, intimidation, obstruction, non-cooperation etc. These are not speech at all - protected/free or otherwise

That doesn't make them bad (or good). Nor is it an attack on free speech from a legal point of view although it is from an ideal point of view.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

If the government fails to act to intercede with a group of obstructionists, what prevents those looking to exercise their speech rights from "taking the law into their own hands"?

See Snyder_v._Phelps

In this case, the presumption is that had WBC interfered with the funeral service, they would have overstepped the bounds of their rights (of free speech).

Dan Carlin is one of my favorite podcasters.

His most recent Common Sense podcast is quite on point here.

Common Sense 315 – War on a Whim?

I think that's also entirely unrelated to what he said. Try again.

You can't say that protest can absolutely never interfere with free speech and then say, well, there's a lot of grey areas and there's going to be some push and pull.

My point is, protesters will always attempt to shout down their political opponents.

The place to battle it out is in the courts, and at the ballot box. Not on the streets. Arrest the violent protesters and have them make the case to the judge/jury that they are right in their actions.

E.g. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the courts will rule that it is "free speech" to violently prevent your opponents from expressing their political speech.

You can't just slip in the word violent here. When violence is (or if it's ever) necessary is a different issue.

We were talking about protest in general interfering with speech. And that's where you might see a clash of two extremely important fundamental rights. You can't simplify this down to if one impacts the other then it's illegitimate because there are a thousand non-violent ways this can occur.

superslug,

There is no point in trying to get things across to these people who are continually referencing only their own constructed reality in their own head. They genuinely cannot accept that their conceived narrative is false, and that their arguments have been without merit and principle. The brainwashing is too deep, and rationality is gone.

If protesters are interfering with a political speech, those protesters can be stopped by the government because they are interfering with the political rights of others.

I can absolutely simplify it down to a fundamentally simple concept. Everyone, on a fundamental level, has the right to express their political speech, publicly. Literally everyone. Literally publicly. It is trivially simple to understand.

Whether violent or non-violent in nature -- you do not have the right to interfere with the free exercise of the rights of others. Period. Full stop. Very simple to understand.

I slip in the word violent there because an allegedly peaceful protest, which has the purposeful effect of nullifying the political rights of others, if not curtailed, will result in violence (whether or not it is justified).

Ask yourself... If you continually prevent your enemies from exercising their political rights, why wouldn't you expect them to eventually resist (not protest) with violence?

~~~

You have the right to protest.

You do not have the right to protest in a way that prevents me from exercising my rights.

You can chose another method of protest that does not effect my rights. Therefore, you are obligated to chose another way.