Leftist Riot Du Jour - UC Berkeley

[pErvinalia]

17264642_1805689019752054_5432336673783305115_n.jpg (16.85 KiB) Viewed 2616 times

[Woodbutcher]

If you can't show your face when protesting, then you have no right to protest.

Authoritarianism FTW!

If you hide your face when doing something it means you know you have no legitimate right to be there.

Rubbish.

Why in the fuck would you hide your face when protesting? Afraid of the consequences of your actions? Then the only explanation is that you know you will be punished for your participation because what you are doing is illegal. Or are you governed by sharia law? Practically every criminal act during a protest has been done by masked people. A mask makes you anonymous and therefore beyond reproach. That's why riot police are masked as well, aside from the fact that they need to protect against tear gas.

[pErvinalia]

Repression/retaliation from the state and/or employers and/or family members and/or acquaintances.

Oh no, something is illegal. It's the end of (legal) history. Laws are set in stone for the rest of eternity.

[Forty Two]

I think they should be allowed to wear masks, but the police need to take action against the rioters when they riot (masks or no masks). And, by action I mean they need to arrest them.

[Forty Two]

That wouldn't happen if they were all liberals. They'd all approach the person and tell him that they respect his view that blowing up the plane would be a good thing. They'd then offer him a cup of tea and a biscuit.

You seem to be unable to understand the difference between the right to speak a viewpoint, and an obligation on the part of everyone else to agree or respect that view. Everyone having the right to express a viewpoint includes the right to ridicule viewpoints expressed by others.

Also, shouting bomb on a plane and and such is not an expression of a viewpoint, but rather is causing a panic by falsely stating there was a bomb, or trying to make people think there is a bomb there. Obviously, if a person actually has a bomb, then his statement that he has the bomb is true, but would be part of his plan or scheme to hijack or destroy the aircraft. But, it's not the mere verbalizing of the words that is at issue -- in any case, it's the action of disrupting a flight or threatening actions that are the crime.

If someone, particularly of middle eastern look, said out loud "I'd like to blow this plane up", he would be punched in the face by the state. Freedum!

The State would have a seat next to him on the plane?

But your hypothetical proves that it's right to punch people out for peacefully voicing political opinions that one finds disagreeable, offensive or hateful. You've presented a brilliant case, and I doubt anyone could possibly puzzle out an way to rebut it.

[pErvinalia]

You said freedom of speech means we all have the right to express our viewpoint. I was making the point that we don't. And the state will punish some forms of speech. You're all good with that, apparently. "Liberal".

[Forty Two]

You said freedom of speech means we all have the right to express our viewpoint. I was making the point that we don't.

Well, we do, like when Madonna publicly stated she thought about blowing up the White House.

And the state will punish some forms of speech. You're all good with that, apparently. "Liberal".

Threatening to blow up a plane is not a viewpoint.

The state does not punish, or ought not punish, forms of speech. For example, you can picket someone's house, but you can't use a bullhorn to keep them awake at night. You can say what you want, but you can't conspire to commit murder and take a predicate step toward committing the crime (ie., you and I can talk about how interesting it would be to kill trump, and what might be good ways to do it - but, if commit a predicate act toward committing the crime, then we're guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder). Another "exception" is the incitement of violence - but, that's not just talking about or advocating the merits of violence. It's perfectly free speech to advocate the merits of violent action. The viewpoint that violence in given situations would be good - like it's o.k. to advocate punching Nazis or killing them. But, if your advocacy is the incitement of IMMINENT lawless, violent action, then it's crossed from speech into conduct, and is not speech at all. The common theme in the "exceptions" to free speech is that what's going on crosses over into conduct which causes concrete injury to others.

There is the obscenity exception, which I largely oppose -- although, private possession of obscene material is protected under current law. I would not have a general obscenity exception. And, distinct from obscenity is the child pornography exception, but that spills over into conduct because they're depicting underage persons engaged in conduct which is not lawful for them to engage in.

[Seth]

I think they should be allowed to wear masks, but the police need to take action against the rioters when they riot (masks or no masks). And, by action I mean they need to arrest them.

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[Seth]

If you can't show your face when protesting, then you have no right to protest. If you hide your face when doing something it means you know you have no legitimate right to be there. It also gives you a chance to do harm anonymously. I'd be wearing my union jacket with my name stitched on the arm.

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[pErvinalia]

Oh God, it's back...

[JimC]

The return of the Seth...

A movie extravaganza, although somewhat predictable in plot...

[Animavore]

Ignore option = peace of mind. Just saying.

[rainbow]

If you can't show your face when protesting, then you have no right to protest. If you hide your face when doing something it means you know you have no legitimate right to be there. It also gives you a chance to do harm anonymously. I'd be wearing my union jacket with my name stitched on the arm.

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Good.

[Forty Two]

The Klan is exactly why the law Seth cited was passed almost 150 years ago.

Today, there are about 5,000 or so members of the KKK, and not all of them are particularly active. Among them are people who are just dues payers. The Klan is a non-issue, and they aren't very active.

[Brian Peacock]

Why the distinction between 'active' and 'just dues payers' members of the KKK?

But clearly they've been a lot more active during the runup to the election, and since - along with a number of other Trump-supporting white supremacist groups.



So what are you trying to tell us here?