Charlottesville, VA

LOST, 

the reason for me posting was to present a solution to avoid tragic incidents like the one in Charlottesville. I suggested amending the 1st amendment to exclude groups who represent hate from having public assemblys.

Do you suggest anything other than "the Founding Fathers got it right"?

As many have responded defining "hate" is very hard and not something you really want the government to be doing. If you look around the world you would see many people locked up for protests that the government there deemed to violate laws that are really just to protect the government.

So no, I would not want to write any limits into the constitution. There is actually enough flexibility and wiggle room to deal with what needs to be dealt with. In NY you can not attach protest signs to wood poles to prevent the poles from being used as a weapon. I think granting a permit with a restriction baring open carry or lit torches would be upheld by most courts.

Understood and respected ska. I respect both yours and mI1's point of view.

But if you use that point of view, Trump's comments seem correct since the anti-protesters' reason for being there was to dispute the protesters' right to peaceably assemble and express themselves "legally", the way they wanted to, correct?

It is well established that when you have spirited protest and counter protest the most successful way to maintain order and give everyone space to express their opinions is for authorities to keep the two sides physically separated. Charlottesville to a large degree spiraled out of control because the authorities failed to maintain that physical separation. This does not excuse the actions of the far right protesters, but it is the authorities responsibility to maintain order while letting everyone express their views.

I don't see any logical connection between what I'm saying and what Trump said.  Trump was not acknowledging that the fascists provoked violence by arriving in riot gear carrying torches and sticks.  otoh, I'm saying that the inciting aspects of the Charlottesville demonstration could easily be made unlawful (helmets, shields, weapons, open flames) without making any changes to the 1st Amendment's right to assemble "peaceably."

Yes, as ML1 said, the authorities failed to use the toolkit already available before and during the event to keep the gathering from morphing from a protest to an intimidation and riot by the right.

mI1,

the 1st amendment clearly states that the possession of helmets, shields, weapons and open flames during a peaceful assembly are prohibited? If not, that would require making a change, no?

ska,

that would mean a citizen's tax dollars would have to pay for that additional authority service. Many may be against their tax dollars being used for that.

MrSuburbs said:

mI1,

the 1st amendment clearly states that the possession of helmets, shields, weapons and open flames during a peaceful assembly are prohibited? If not, that would require making a change, no?

ska,

that would mean a citizen's tax dollars would have to pay for that additional authority service. Many may be against their tax dollars being used for that.

I think you are confusing what I'm describing (legislation) with the Constitution. The Constitution is clear about a right to "peaceably" assemble.  States or the federal government could then pass legislation as to what defines "peaceable."  Someone could of course bring suit if he/she wanted to challenge whether those definitions pass constitutional muster.

but bringing weapons, armor and flammable items to a demonstration would seem to be definitely not peaceable.

LOST said:

79 of 435.

You could have had 79 signatures in the Reichstag to censure Hitler.

Of course those 79 would have been killed or sent to Concentration Camps, so we're still ahead.

The 79 introduced the resolution this morning. There will be many more signing on.

ml1 and ska:

I wouldn't bother continuing to explain. It appears that sometimes MrSuburbs pretends not to understand in order to take things beyond the absurd:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.co...

sprout said:

ml1 and ska:

I wouldn't bother trying to explain. It appears that sometimes MrSuburbs pretends not to understand in order to take things beyond the absurd:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.co...

ok.  so I'm being trolled.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

MrSuburbs said:

LOST, 

the reason for me posting was to present a solution to avoid tragic incidents like the one in Charlottesville. I suggested amending the 1st amendment to exclude groups who represent hate from having public assemblys.

Do you suggest anything other than "the Founding Fathers got it right"?

No. 

Amending the First Amendment is just about the worst idea ever.

This is an article by a former White Supremist

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

sprout,

not sure what that's about. If i disagree or have a different opinion I'm pretending to not understand?

LOST,

read the article. I hope he's wrong in thinking the modernization of tactics can only make things worse ...

ml1 said:

sprout said:

ml1 and ska:

I wouldn't bother trying to explain. It appears that sometimes MrSuburbs pretends not to understand in order to take things beyond the absurd:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.co...

ok.  so I'm being trolled.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No worries. It happens to all of us.

MrSuburbs said:

ml1,

No I don't want to live in a country where the government controls what I say or do but I also don't want to live in a country where groups are allowed to assemble to voice hate towards anyone.

You can't have it both ways.  

ml1 said:

MrSuburbs said:

mI1,

the 1st amendment clearly states that the possession of helmets, shields, weapons and open flames during a peaceful assembly are prohibited? If not, that would require making a change, no?

ska,

that would mean a citizen's tax dollars would have to pay for that additional authority service. Many may be against their tax dollars being used for that.

I think you are confusing what I'm describing (legislation) with the Constitution. The Constitution is clear about a right to "peaceably" assemble.  States or the federal government could then pass legislation as to what defines "peaceable."  Someone could of course bring suit if he/she wanted to challenge whether those definitions pass constitutional muster.

but bringing weapons, armor and flammable items to a demonstration would seem to be definitely not peaceable.

Flame may be easy to curtail everywhere, though armor could fall under protection, and under existing open carry laws weapons are a bit of a grey area.  This isn't that cut and dried. 

It's been a sheet cake kind of half-year:

“No. 1, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. No. 2, racism, the least racist person.” So the president said at a news conference in February. These words left me uneasy. A moment ago, as I was looking at photographs of young men in Charlottesville, Va., who were from my home state, Ohio, and thinking about the message “Heil Hitler” on the T-shirt that one wore, it dawned on me why.

I spent years studying the testimonies of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and the recollections of their rescuers. When the rescuers were asked why they did what they did, they usually avoided the question. If they ventured a reply, it was simply to say that they did what anyone would have done. Historians who read sources develop intuitions about the material. The intuition I developed was that people who bragged about rescuing Jews had generally not done so; they were, in fact, more likely to be anti-Semites and racists. Rescuers almost never boast.
...
I found myself thinking also of another Polish Nobel Prize-winning poet, Wislawa Szymborska. She memorably described a seemingly normal woman who was caught up in her daily cares but, when the moment arrived, ran headlong into a burning building to save children who were not her own.

“We know ourselves,” Ms. Szymborska wrote, “only insofar as we have been tested.”

Until we have been tested, there is no sense in boasting of our goodness; afterward, there is no need. After Charlottesville, President Trump faced an easy test, and failed. When presented with an obvious opportunity to condemn the evil that was and is Nazism, he first waited, then equivocated, then read from a teleprompter, then relativized. He spoke of “very fine people on both sides.”
...
The Nazi groups that marched in Charlottesville cannot be considered a “side.” When they carry torches, they imitate Nazi rituals. When they perform the call and response of “Trump! Hail” and “Victory! Hail!” they are translating Nazi performances that we know better in German: “Hitler! Heil!” and “Sieg! Heil!” In Charlottesville, American Nazis shouted “Sieg! Heil!” as they passed a synagogue.

When the supporters of the alt-right chant that “Jews will not replace us,” they recapitulate the Nazi idea of a world Jewry that stifles the master race and must therefore be removed from the planet. When they shout “Blood and soil,” they repeat a Nazi slogan signifying that races will murder races for land without mercy and forever.

+1

The Test of Nazism That Trump Failed

if someone has to tell you they aren't racist...

From what I now understand,  there was a path planned out by the authorities. The protesters strayed from that path which led to less protection available when violence ensued.

keeping the protesters ON the agreed upon path might have been an idea...