Three of Timothy Snyder's lessons against authoritarianism come in quite handy here.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/1965...trumps-america

Actually, Victor, I was hoping that everyone would agree but it appears that he supports this use of violence to suppress free speech.

No True Horror ITT

First off you're assuming the premise and begging the question by stating it as the suppression of free speech. We're still at square one ITT. See my exchange with Lapderpitor. Palinitis is epidemic.

No I don't. Cite or ban.

We've had no exchanges. You sit in the corner staring into a broken mirror, shouting obscenities.

See, here's the paradox you people are running into: Free speech is important because it's powerful, as in, speech itself is powerful. It can bend reality to your will, for better or worse. Hitler gave speeches, not silent demonstrations where he mimed or had a picture slideshow of Jews being all Jewish and stuff. Watch a Hitler speech with the sound turned off. It's just a dude with a bad haircut and funny mustache gesticulating wildly.

So, when faced with the reality of people willing to kill and die not to suppress the speech itself, necessarily, but as a preemptive strike to suppress the reality the can be bent, you people are left with saying something to the effect of, well, what's the big deal, it's only speech? Perhaps, but if so, why is it so important? Who gives a **** if Coulter et al aren't allowed to derp out, if the speech is so ineffectual unto itself?

Now, those two paragraphs are slightly but obviously biased in one direction, but from a plain reading they don't definitively fall on one side or the other. Rather, this is something you need to think about if you actually want to talk about this issue and not just parrot whatever right-wing talking point you heard through the right-wing telephone game.

Project less maybe.

Einbert, I say that because I said above what I think you are saying. Then I said is that correct. You did not answer me. How else should I interpret your silence on that question?

I answered your question. Full stop.

Five, you're just playing word games. I'm not I terested in I twisting your words. If you want to say something, say it.

"Cite or ban"? JFC, get a grip.

The question raised was whether its appropriate to use violence to stop Coulter's speech at Berkeley. Your posts show the usual **** ton of crap involving resistance to slave owners, nazis and fascists (the actual kind, not the ones you often imagine), rather than a clear, cogent response -- sorry, but none of these comes close to Coulter talking.

But I guess you think your point is clear given that you more or less call everyone who disagrees with you a "fascist" and have previously noted that anyone who didn't vote for the hilldawg has perpetrated an act of "racism." Sorry to bust your bubble, but most people that disagree with you aren't fascist racists -- they are just people that disagree with you.

To put it plainly, he doesn't really need to cite anything. Your posts speak for themselves. As you have previously indicated, being for free speech does not mean being for free speech only if it is consistent with what you agree with -- and no one, as far as I can tell, is disagreeing with that in principle (I believe that you referred to opposition, as such, as fascism). His inference that you support suppression of free speech is completely reasonable given your posting history (especially in this thread). If he's wrong, you can correct him (i.e., he's wrong to assume that you are okay with the use of violence to stop Coulter from talking) -- and sorry, support for repression of speech from those that YOU consider "fascists" does not allow you to suggest that you are the civil rights warrior that you like to pretend to be. Not everyone's a fascist, and you don't get to decide that a whole range of people that disagree with you don't have the right to free speech -- well, you can, but as indicated, expect to get called out (appropriately) as someone that is not the free speech supporter that you like to claim to be.

Again, if he's wrong you can offer a clarification -- but note that his questioning of your views largely stems for your usual ****ty posting which tries to compare apples and oranges without an actual meaningful response.

And to top it off, you suggest that the requested clarification (as noted above, quite reasonable given your posting history) should be "ban"-worthy. Sorry, but no. Try to post better in the future rather that trying to shut down those that disagree with you -- it's what free speech is all about. And this is "unchained." Take your bull**** ban requests to Alpha, where they seem to like your spambot ****ty posting.

Separately, I'd suggest you really need to get a grip, chicken little. The sky is not falling and you don't have to act like everything that happens which doesn't go the way you'd like requires immediate and (sometimes) radical reaction. I'm sure the echo chamber that these forums are will applaud your decision to go to Hawaii as bold and principled -- but seriously, things really aren't that bad. If you want to do it, more power to you, but seems like a completely irrational overreaction, which none of your "friends" on the forums are going to try to help bring you to understand (or otherwise help bring you down to earth about). But, hey, to each his own; enjoy Hawaii -- heard it's nice to live there.

Thought he was talking about bert, and here's what bert said on the point:

"Before the Emancipation Proclamation became law, abolitionism in the south was just a violent, anarchistic campaign you might have heard of. It was often called "The Underground Railroad." It was completely illegal, they did use violence in self-defense, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. I would've supported that as well. "

Guess he didn't actually speak to "suppression of free speech" though, since it was "self-defense". Thought we were talking about people like Coulter talking, though -- obv self-defense required there. So could be wrong here.

Well then with Coulter the correct answer is obviously 'it depends'.

Einbert,

Moving to Hawaii? Sounds nice. Despite what Jefferson Beauregard Sessions thinks it is part of the USA.

So it's ok to plow through a group of protesters blocking a road?

I believe in common sense. If guy's in ski masks show up to a protest..lock em up. If people burn or destroy things..shut the protest down. If people try to block a road..lock em up...If people use violent retoric..lock em up. If people try to stop a speaker from speaking..lock em up. If people can't explain what it is they are protesting..give them the boot. If people bring their kids to protests..take their kids away and lock them up. If people curse...give them the boot.

"Violent rhetoric"?



Lock him up.

His rhetoric was reasonable in response to a perceived threat.

There is definitely potential for witch hunting (either mislabeling enemies as a false pretext of their indictment or creating some kind of violent mob or atmosphere) in justifying violence against Nazis (or any other group). That doesn't mean it's not still a good policy on balance, as long as the risks of the policy enforcement remain at acceptable levels. The same can be said for violent protests against institutional transgressions, or even mass actions like blocking a freeway.

As for real world examples, I would say action against a Nazi on the verge of securing significant elected office would be justified. David Duke, for example, should not be allowed to get into official political power.

Those who have attained popularity through more mainstream opinions should not be allowed to suddenly turn Nazi and use their popularity to aid some Nazi demagogue.

It seems like there are two categories of significant authoritarian threats- ascendant and actual. Either of these are justifiably dealt with outside the law.

For an example of an actual threat check out the FBI's investigation into white supremacist infiltration of local law enforcement units. Once discovered as compromised, units employing white supremacists should not be obeyed, and should be taken over by the federal government or a citizen brigade.

The Duke candidacy would be an ascendant threat and should be dealt with proportionally to the threat. No, David Duke does not have the right, through free speech provisions, to make credible attacks on freedom itself. Once you declare war on the social contract you are just out there, exposed to a meta- reinterpretation of law in light of your breach. Those who break the contract do not get to retain their rights.

Great post. Thank you for the detailed answer!

Can you clarify what you mean by the last sentence though? From a legal standpoint you aren't arguing that they have fewer rights than anyone else, right?

If you are just making a similar point to what whosnext was making and are saying that there can be instances where individual citizens can have a legitimate reason/moral obligation to break certain laws, it's hard to argue against that.

But it needs to a high bar. I'd agree that the examples that you gave do seem to meet that standard. Violence to stop Ann Coulter from talking at Berkeley doesn't.

I mean that there are implicit, foundational agreements which allow a free society to function as such. This is not my idea by any means. It's social contract theory, which I think is a good framework for discussing how to deal with phenomena which appear to pose a systemic risk to the rights securing us freedom.

I think we can all agree that freedom has to be protected. I wouldn't sit idly by and watch David Duke win the presidency, a position he would predictably use to destroy freedom. Yet, conceivably, he could win the presidency without breaking any laws. And, once there, the constitution itself will not protect the population. Lincoln suspended Habeous corpus during the civil war. He had to, and I'm cool with him having done it. At the same time, it demonstrates the need to keep certain people out of high office despite their apparent free speech provisions to legally obtain it.

Yes it gets muddy pretty quick going through cases. The argument against Ann Coulter wrt violence seems like a stretch. We all know, intuitively, that she is a very bad person, the type of person who would have loved being a Nazi- everything she says and does is consistent with that. But you can't indict someone for that. However, if we were to expand the protections being considered to the rest of the world then there might be, if not a compelling argument, a more compelling argument. She often has advocated for the mass killing of Middle Eastern people. If you care about the freedom of the targets of her foreign policy positions then you have to consider whether she should be allowed to threaten that freedom with her words and ideas.

Personally, I don't care that much about people halfway around the world, in a certain sense. Like if two tribes in Afghanistan want to kill each other I don't really care. If some country wants to stone people to death for adultery I don't really care- it's up to them to sacrifice and struggle if they want a different world and there can be no better way to achieve that world. But I do care very deeply not to support these sort of actions abroad the way our government does. I care about the people in my country, since the idea of having countries has to be so ****ing popular. But some people expand their concept of citizen to the entire world (I'm not opposed to that but have a deeper belief in reciprocity). If one believes that the freedom of someone in Iraq (for example) qualifies for protection then one could justify shutting down a Coulter talk. I don't think violence would be justified because the link between her actions and policy is tenuous, but shutting her down how we did Trump in Chicago seems morally justified despite her apparent right to free speech. There is room for proportionality when decided whether shutting off someone's speech is justified.

Let's say, for an extreme example, there was a political party formed in the U.S. whose main position was that we should nuke the rest of the world and then, when everyone else in the world was dead, expand into it. Say this was physically possible because we built the ultimate missile shield or something. The world has gone nuts, they say, "and see this passage in the Bible right here? That is urging us on to complete the Armageddon." Let's say somehow, through the Christian right, this idea gains some traction. The other parties are fighting and so there is an opening- crazy nuke-the-world party could win. Are we supposed to stand by and watch that happen? **** no. Break the law to stop them- by any means. But the nuke-the-world party is only exercising its free speech, right?

And btw don't think my extreme hypothetical is too extreme to yield practical insight. Christian fundamentalism is growing. Their churches are focused on end times mythology. Jerry Falwell write a book in 1983 called "Nuclear War and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ". Prophesying the end of the world and the punishment of non-believers is part of scaring people into the church and has been going on since Christianity started. Now we've got nukes tho.

A lot of your positions seem rather arbitrary as opposed to principled.

Would violence have been justified to stop HRC from being SoS by Honduran-Americans as that was a position used to destroy freedom (and lives!)

Did Obama destroy freedom from surveillance during his presidency?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." - Emerson

Most things come in degrees and have to be looked at case by case because there are competing costs, benefits and even principles to weigh.

“There's no chance of their having a conscious glimpse of the truth as long as they refuse to disturb the things they take for granted and remain incapable of explaining them. For if your starting-point is unknown, and your end-point and intermediate stages are woven together out of unknown material, there may be coherence, but knowledge is completely out of the question.” - Plato

But hey for fun I even floated two cases for you.

I could probably program an einbert from my laptop to fill the void if he has no access to internet in Hawaii.