I suspect I will regret responding sincerely, but...

Racist violence has deep and horrible roots in this country. Seizing the means of production, not so much. And the right wing in general has many more people with fringe views than the left wing. Even conservatives like William F. Buckley recognized this. Now fringe beliefs grow increasingly mainstream. You see majorities of Republicans willing to adopt obviously absurd and contradictory positions, such as millions of illegal votes all for Hillary, Obama cooked the unemployment stats but Trump's similar numbers are true, climate change is a hoax, and so on. There is a legitimate fear that if fringe right wing actors continue to be normalized, then we will see gross violations of civil rights by the government (worse than now), justified with flimsy excuses that are accepted without question by a large segment of the population.

agreed

Is this supposed to be a real newspaper or is it some right wing nut job publication?

hasn't seemed like it

or maybe I'm just not as willing to carve out exceptions to fundamental civil rights

The problem we have, if it was a Muslim the right would never ever say it was just one crazy guy.

This place needs some sort of software limit of 50 posts/day or something.

They obviously weren't too scared, no one was shot.

Just out of curiosity, which exceptions do you carve out? Is one of them advocating violence? There are basically 2 ways to go about achieving the white ethno-state these neo-nazis are out there "peacefully" protesting for. One is forcibly removing minorities from the country. The other is genocide. If you ever read any articles about them being interviewed, they clam up right quick when you ask how they want to go about achieving their goals.

It's the sole daily newspaper in the city according to the wiki

Something close to 100% of those people were at the women's march, including the people with red flags. Obviously most of the people at the women's march were not at this one.

I guess if you're more talking about the "preserve our history" people on the streets for confederate generals, I think they're perfectly within their rights. Though I would say to them that they're not immune from counter-protests. And that the history is preserved perfectly well in museums and textbooks. They don't care about history, they want the confederacy to hold a place of honor on the public square.

Almost all of those monuments were erected during the 1900s when Jim Crow and the KKK reemerged and then during the Civil Rights Movement. **** them.

https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/w...ls-confederacy

This is, of course, true. They're idiots but unless they're advocating violence then the appropriate punishment is getting laughed at while the monuments are getting taken down imo.

The Daily Progress is a conservative paper in a liberal town. No one takes it seriously.

It's really the only "real" Charlottesville paper, though, unfortunately.

Notice the felony "riot" charges. The handing out of this shiz seems to be a new and deeply troubling trend.

As regards statues and even more so street names, school names and the like, the way to get around the inconvenience of removing them quickly is simple. Add some sort of symbol to them or on signs referring to them. It doesn't even have to be that nasty to avoid too much backlash. Perhaps a simple question mark.

I don't care about convenience particularly. Public displays honoring the confederacy should be gone, period. I was just pointing out where I draw the line concerning advocating violence and protected speech.

None of these arguments are at all new. They've existed since the abolition movement through Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Era and to today. 'The real agitators are the people opposed to white supremacist symbology, not its violent defenders. Black people invited violent white revenge by complaining. The problems are extremists on both sides, violent right wing paramilitary groups and people upset by them.'

Twas ever thus. They're just unclever ways to argue for the status quo.

The US believes in free speech, they need to modify that to free speech not including the promotion of hatred. Since the KKK and neo nazis promote hatred as the very foundation of their beliefs then they should not be allowed to demonstrate. That would further push these groups to the periphery so they cannot infect the dumb and impressionable

It's fine if you disagree but dismissing this view as a right wing fringe conspiracy theory is dishonest.

From the Supreme Court this summer:
"A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society."

The free speech issue doesn't belong to the right.

You know Killary was driving that car I don't know why we're all playing coy.

I have no idea what that is. Can I clown on people there?

The law is not neutral.