Your position isn't inconsistent.

I don't agree though. If people outside a Mosque or Synagogue or Church or ethnic community center or LGBTQ event or ..., are intentionally harassing or causing distress to anyone who goes in or out then I see no reason why we should put up with that in the name of free speech.

The scenario you are describing reminds me of a Supreme Court case where they had pro lifers harassing people outside of abortion clinics. The resolution was to create a buffer zone so that people could enter the clinic unmolested if they so choose but the prolifers free speech was only mildly restricted.

...I misremembered. Apparently this solution was actually unanimously struck down by the Supreme Court. The case was McCullen v Coakley.

Unfamiliar with the case but it raises the point I've made before that the right to free speech in the USA doesn't necessarily have to result in law that different from what we have in the UK. The Supreme court can interpret the law to take account of the parts of the action that don't qualify as speech i.e they could decide that harassment isn't speech and that some situations amount to harassment.

edit: you probably have to change the judges, give it another 100 years and the USA might catch up . The fact it failed this time doesn't mean it will always fail but it does make it much harder to get anywhere via political activity.

49? Wow I was way off.

Was it? I remember this also. I thought the protestors were required to give them 6 feet of space to enter the buildings.

NSFTFST

I do ok and im a libertarian socialist/communist. Kind of a centrist since my views pull form all sides. Maybe mix it up a little and dont take the alt right line, the libs caused trump because of something something, in 90% of your posts would help.


Fwiw you saying you would break good faith treaties with Native Americans who receive money from the US did not help in me viewing you as a liberal or a centrist. I would consider that very extreme.

libertarian communist?

lol, the most ridiculous ideology in the world

What views of mine are ridiculous? Be specific. If it just the box then meh...

At least as ridiculous as authoritarian capitalist, but without the enforced competition to survive.

because anarcho-communism is more utopian then regular communism, which is why its the most ridiculous ideology

Right the box. Meh...i dont even fit in it really. Like i said i have views form all the sides.

You should post in the Rojava thread.

I read it its good. If there was one thing i would want out of our endless war in the middle east it would be for the Kurds to have a homeland.

Not a Kurdish homeland imo. TEV-DEM, The democratic confederation in Northern Syria is largely Kurdish, but it's explicitly not exclusive or nationalist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move...cratic_Society

Iraqi Kurdistan is a nationalist parliamentary republic sorta.

Yeah i mean more that they have some peace and a say in their governments.

I literally just re-watched this the past weekend and I'm suspecting you did too.

I suspect every halfway decent human is some sort of left-libertarian if their beliefs were laid plain and bare, and still hold on to the vestiges even after they remember the inhumanity and evil that lurks in the hearts of men.

No the eighty/forty hour work week stuff made me think of it.

And this too.

Yeah, I saw you mentioned it in that thread as well.

So how to you stop that speech, but then allow protesters to harrass anyone they imagine to be fascists, Islamophobes, antisemites, etc.? Regarding those last two, activists from each religion often accuse the other of such treachery. Seems ripe for abuse by whichever side happens to have the current public sympathy.

It's leaning towards authoritarian and rather silly to decide nilly willy just how much free will some body else has.

All free speech fronts bear careful examination. Do It Yourself counter-fascism.

https://nocara.blackblogs.org/2017/07/06/diy-division/

Your point still stands.

"Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, writing that, "The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve Massachusetts' asserted interests."[1] He stated that Massachusetts failed to show that it tried less intrusive alternatives first"

One of their main issues seemed to be that Massachusetts hadn't first tried less restrictive means to protect those that were entering the clinic. His wording seems to suggest that there is some small amount of burden on speech that could be considered acceptable if the state shows a compelling interest.

This case was about a 35' buffer around the clinics. There may be another case about a 6' buffer that happened after but I'm only aware of this one.