This is not complicated ... ... by Bob Nelson
This is not complicated
1. Neo-Nazis are evil .
2. Defending Neo-Nazis is evil.
3. Justifying Neo-Nazis is evil.
4. Associating with Neo-Nazis is evil.
5. Refusing to recognize that Neo-Nazis are evil is... ... blatantly... ... evil .
Oh... and of course... attempting to justify the evil of Neo-Nazis by saying that there is other evil in the world... ... is not only evil, but egregiously hypocritically duplicitous as well.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
413 visitors
Simple...
Dear Friend Bob Nelson: Says it all, doesn't it?
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Thank you
Yep. It's shocking to see just how many people are unwilling to condemn hate groups like those.
They love those who the people they hate hate.
Simple...
Yes, it really is.
Simple and to the point.
I don't defend or like these folks, but you are not allowed to silence those you don't agree with.
Why would you feel "silenced" by an article condemning Nazis?
That's not what I said.
Oh?
Them for whom do you speak?
And... ... why?
For the constitution, for the United States (though they didn't specifically ask me to). You start trying to silence groups, then you have to be prepared for when someone else wants to silence you and your group(s).
I'd rather be able to point out groups like that to my offspring and say see those idiots? Don't be like them.
So... You are defending the neo-nazis. Bravo! Be proud!
No, he's not. He's using them as an example of what not to be
That comment is a lie. Typical.
Please ask for clarification, instead of jumping to conclusions
People who have an agenda will twist your truth into something it is not in order to promote their agenda. Calling out evil by name or otherwise has nothing to do with supporting the 1st amendment and to say by supporting the 1st amendment you are thereby supporting the evil is incorrect to say it mildly.
For the constitution, for the United States (though they didn't specifically ask me to). You start trying to silence groups, then you have to be prepared for when someone else wants to silence you and your group(s).
There are exceptions to the First Amendment …
there are seven broad categories of speech (which includes things written or published online or in social media) that may not be protected by the First Amendment. Knowing what they are, so that you can decide what risks you are willing to take, is just good sense.
Hate Speech
OK, it protects it sometimes — and sometimes it doesn’t. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful protests at military funerals are legal — while most “fighting words” are not. A Jehovah’s Witness went to prison for calling a police officer a “God damned racketeer”, a teenager was jailed for burning a cross, and Hustler paid damages to a preacher over a parody labelled as such in the magazine.
Inciting Violence
Speech that incites violence or encourages the audience to commit illegal or dangerous acts. This is a gray area that has resulted in many kinds of litigation. A radio station tried to claim First Amendment protection when two cars chasing a station car carrying prizes forced a third car off the road, killing the driver. But the courts said that reckless driving was the foreseeable result of the station’s broadcasts. In another case, chat room conversations that encouraged suicide were also denied First Amendment protection.
Supporting Terrorism
The Patriot Act outlawed “ material support ” to domestic or foreign terrorist groups, even if that “support” intends to offer peaceful alternatives to conflict through humanitarian aid. For more information on this sensitive and rapidly changing topic, check websites such as The Center for Constitutional Rights or Wikipedia .
Public Employee Speech
Public speech made in the conduct of their duties by public employees may not be protected. Richard Ceballos was a LA County Sheriff’s Deputy whose grievance went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify a key point that many social media users should know by heart: the law (usually) distinguishes between what an employee says as a private citizen, and statements made as part of the person’s job responsibilities.
Your employer, however, may not have to make any such distinction. In many states, you can get fired for making statements as a private citizen that your employer finds objectionable. And if you work in a regulated industry such as insurance, financial services, banking, health care, pharmaceuticals, or education, you must be aware of an alphabet-soup of regulations such as FINRA, HIPAA, FERPA, MIPPA, NAIC, plus SEC, FTC, and FCC rules.
Some regulations, notably FINRA and FERPA make no distinction between what a person says as a private citizen and what they say as part of their job. So this is an area that each social media user should understand as it relates to their own profession.
Defamation
Slander , libel or defamation . There are many, many nuances here — and the rules are different depending on whether or not the injured person is a public or private figure. Context matters, too, and so does whether the words used are an opinion (usually, but not always, protected) or factual statement (not protected unless the facts are provably true — and proving the truth is often far more costly and difficult than you might think). Defamation can be a criminal offense in some countries.
The case of blogger Nik Richie, who is facing millions in damages for defamation over what readers said in the comments section of his gossip blog, points out just how serious the consequences may be in this arena.
There are two kinds of lawsuits that sound similar to defamation when you try to describe them in layman’s terms, but they are based on different legal principals and apply to companies and products. These are product disparagement and tortious interference . Once rare, defamation, product disparagement and tortious interference lawsuits are becoming increasingly common.
Intellectual Property
Publishing confidential, trade secret, or copyright material may be a civil or criminal offense, depending on the nature of the intellectual property that is being published without permission, and the jurisdiction in which the offense occurs. I’m not going to even attempt to discuss this in any detail, because the rules are just too complex.
But remember that non-disclosure agreements, employee policy agreements, and contracts apply online and off. Yes, there are whistle blower statues in some states that will protect an employee who goes public with otherwise protected information because of a threat to public health or illegal activity . But there is no absolute protection for whistle blowers — and it doesn’t exist everywhere.
True Threats
True threats are like many other areas of First Amendment protection: context, target, and intent matter in determining what is or is not a true threat. Some threats are always illegal — any threat to the President of the U.S., for example. Any online comment that could be construed as a terrorist threat, for instance, is likely to be treated as a true threat.
For example, in 2010, Deer Park Middle School in the Round Rock Independent School District, near Austin, Texas was evacuated and the FBI called in after a teenage Facebook user in Saudi Arabia made a bomb threat after a girl at the middle school “unfriended” him. The teenager — whose identity is protected because he is less than 17, and a minor under Saudi law, is facing tough questions from Saudi and U.S. officials under the “true threat” doctrine.
In other cases, courts have ruled that in order to be a true threat, very specific circumstances must exist. Check out Stanford University’s The Nuremberg Files for a detailed account of the case in which over 200 doctors sued a website which published “Wanted: Dead or Alive” posters with the photos and home addresses of doctors who performed abortions, with details about the doctor’s families (such as the school their children attended, where their spouses worked, and what kinds of cars they drove).
The doctors said that the wanted posters constituted a true threat — and two murders were attributed to the campaign. (One doctor murdered at church, another at home.) In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the website and its wanted posters.
And of course... "Free speech" is exclusively in reference to the state. It does not apply to any other relationship. Insulting the Boss is legal... but not permitted.
Other example, the limits to what may be posted on an online forum are decided by the site's Management. We've seen the neo-nazi site Daily Stormer get kicked off the servers of GoDaddy and Google for language that was perfectly legal... but despicable beyond what the ISPs would allow.
NT members even get suspended once in a while...
Pedantic. Again.
But you can stand up to them
I don't defend or like these folks, but you are not allowed to silence those you don't agree with.
No, but you are allowed to condemn them yourself.
Pride in one's own heritage is understandable even for white people.
these people are just radical nutjobs.
this race is not alone in that, radical nutjob organizations probably exist for most races.
I'd dare say, Radicalism is a form of insanity shared by all races.
Amazing! Less than two months after the scotus made a rare unanimous decision telling morons there is no exception to people's right to free speech, because someone feels it's hate speech, we have this babble. Apparently, even the simplest, straightforward decision by the scotus, is too complicated for bob-nelson's ilk.
WTF?
Amazing! Less than two months after the scotus made a rare unanimous decision telling morons there is no exception to people's right to free speech, because someone feels it's hate speech, we have this babble. Apparently, even the simplest, straightforward decision by the scotus, is too complicated for bob-nelson's ilk.
To equate the resistance to a mob of armed, spewers of hatred, proponents of genocide and ethnic cleansing with the mob itself, is to equivocate for politically expeditious motives, and, to de facto validate hatred and provide it with comfort.
That Trump would lack the integrity and courage to call out and condemn what one Nazi piece-of-shit said in a taped interview, makes him one of them … that comment (and I will post the video if/when it appears on you tube) …
"TRUMP GAVE HIS BEAUTIFUL DAUGHTER TO THAT JEW BASTARD, JARED KUSHNER!"
And where the fuck is Jared Kushner … does he not have the balls to take a stand and walk away from a cancerous White House?
And where the fuck is Jared Kushner … does he not have the balls to take a stand and walk away from a cancerous White House?
No, he does not.
Kushner is so toxic to Trump right now that he can't even weigh in on anything that involves Donald Trump, for good or bad. He's doing the only thing he can do right now - pretend to be invisible.
Sadly, I don't see how anyone could be toxic for Trump. That's like being poisonous for arsenic.
Kushner is a Trump. Only in it for the money. His religion, if he has any, is impotent.
Ivanka would leave him. He's not giving that up, at least not until she gets older.
When he married Ivanka it was nothing more then the joining together of two NY Crime Families.
Well you just run right over to the Supreme Court, and straighten those stupid liberal, and conservative justices out. What's additionally funny is that you don't see yourself as a traitor, when you advocate violating the constitution, and the scotus' decisions based on it. Which in turn makes you a far greater threat to the country than those hate filled little critters.
Comment cited for CoC violation [ph]
WTF?
WTF?
Don't you remember Sam, Bob? I do.
Could you translate, please?
From newsvine. Back in the day.
And where the fuck is Jared Kushner … does he not have the balls to take a stand and walk away from a cancerous White House?
Not sure if that is a rhetorical question or not, but Jared and the Mrs. are vacationing in Croatia...which is where I would be with this kind of shit hitting the fan.
On a side note, I'm wondering what the Secret Service tab on that vacay will be.
I read somewhere that they are in Vermont, not Croatia as many thought.
I read somewhere that they are in Vermont, not Croatia as many thought.
Oops. I'll retract if I'm wrong. Do you remember where you saw the Vermont thing?
Mea Culpa!
You are indeed right. The NY Times corrected the article yesterday. I should have fact-checked before commenting.
I can see Croatia from the deck of my house in Vermont.
This is NOT complicated at all.
The United States and its allies fought World War II to defeat the NAZIs.
Neo-NAZIs are simply a resurgence of that same racist NAZI philosophy.
The same thing that Hitler and his NAZI regime believed in and fought for in the 30's and 40's are the same exact things the scum NAZIs of today are trying to resurrect. They are scum, just like Hitler. Evil worthless scum!
NAZIs are evil. Neo-NAZIs are just as evil and should be defeated just as the original NAZIs were.
Not complicated at all.
Neo-NAZIs are worthless POS.
Great points! I actually agree with all of them. We may disagree on how to get rid of them though. I prefer the Ghandi/MLK method. The one that the ACLU used on the nazi's in Skokie back in the '70s.
Violence begets more violence. There are better ways to deal with the idiots than violence. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the old black and white tv news from the civil rights era. The image that turned the tide toward the victims of racism was the violent beatings on peaceful protesters marching while singing. That silent majority became vocal and legislation was passed.
The image from Charlottesville is one of two groups who came for combat. Not the sympathetic image needed to send the racist groups back under the rocks they crawled out of. I thought that after the Charleston shootings the way the church responded was so powerful. It had an amazing impact on people. Turning the other cheek goes against human nature. that's what makes it so powerful. We need a powerful message to send the fools back to their holes and not more clubs and helmets.
There are times when turning and offering up the other cheek, as Jesus taught, is the way to go. Gandhi was effective with that tactic, as was the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But, let's face facts: non-violent protest would have never been effective against Adolf Hitler, not even in his Brownshirt Days long before he became Chancellor of Germany.
Violence begets violence. Sometimes non-violence can work, sometimes not. It depends on the circumstance.
Today's Brownshirts need to be dealt with. They initiate the violence, they must be taken down by counter-violence in many cases. They live by the sword and they must deal with the sharp end of the sword in retribution. That seems to be the only way they will learn. They see anything else as weakness.
p.s. I am old enough to remember. I rember the high powered water hoses as well as the racist Southern police who wielded them.
Could just rule that hate groups will no longer be allowed to assemble in public places. It's really not a double edged sword like people would have you think.
But yeah, when Nazi's arrive in force with weapons, you can't expect the reaction by witnesses to that to be positive, and you definitely can expect resistance to that...and it would be justified every time to provide said resistance or counter protesting to the public assembly of hate groups.
As the saying goes, "Discriminating against discrimination isn't actually discrimination".
"Could just rule that hate groups will no longer be allowed to assemble in public places."
Who would make that rule? It would never pass the court. The court has ruled 9-0 on free speech issues so what you want won't happen.
We could instead do what the ACLU did when the nazis wanted to march in Skokie IL. Showered the bright light of day on them and the cockroaches went away.
Another unamerican assault on fundamental human rights. Sad.
Another unamerican assault on fundamental human rights. Sad.
And you apparently think that support of NAZIs is as American as baseball and apple pie, right? Shows what you know. (Guessing by your screen name, may I ask: Do you even have apple pie in Mother Russia?)
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Nice try at an ethic slur.
Human rights are important to real Americans, comrade.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Propagating hate isn't a human right.
Yes, it is. Consult the SCOTUS.
Yes, the right to propagate hate. I can literally see your Swastika all the way across these here interwebs. Well polished as they say.
For the record, that isn't actually a fundamental human right. Since you clearly were unaware.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Yes, the right to propagate hate. I can literally see your Swastika all the way across these here interwebs. Well polished as they say.
and we can clearly see your white sheet or umm nowdays black face mask..
Comment skirting the CoC [ph]
You sir are not very coherent. You can't even get an insult right, lol.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Your comments are pure bigotry.
Comment skirting the CoC [ph]
I can accept being labeled a bigot against bigotry. Thank you.
Remember, discrimination against discrimination isn't actually discrimination.
Wisdom you should try to embrace one day if it isn't too late and you find the time to contemplate while not out and about burning crosses on people's yards or carrying tiki torches at Klan rallies.
Comment cited for CoC violation [ph]
You and your Nazi friends will get along splendidly.
Comment cited for CoC violation [ph]
Wait. You and I aren't friends. You are clearly confused now.
Prove it, you ignoramus.
Comment cited for CoC violation [ph]
You are a bigot.
Comment cited for CoC offense [ph]
That was your fourth CoC violation not counting the skirting. You have a 2 day suspension ending Aug 19 10:30 am.
A GENERIC WARNING … STOP THE PERSONAL INSULTS OR I'LL START DELETING COMMENTS!
Here comes the bias...
Another thread demonstrating that liberals embrace the cancellation of the bill of rights and the prosecution of thought crimes. Scum.
Could just rule that hate groups will no longer be allowed to assemble in public places. It's really not a double edged sword like people would have you think.
But yeah, when Nazi's arrive in force with weapons, you can't expect the reaction by witnesses to that to be positive, and you definitely can expect resistance to that...and it would be justified every time to provide said resistance or counter protesting to the public assembly of hate groups.
As the saying goes, "Discriminating against discrimination isn't actually discrimination".
beating a nazi racist or anyone associated in the slightest with them is so in vogue these days...the libs think they have righteous indignation on their side and that makes ANY illegal act OK in their eyes. they can attack anyone they don't like or agree with or destroy any public property they disapprove of, because well they are just more moral, ../s
ps the protestors came to the march carrying flags and such, it was the left that showed up with bats , helmets, black face masks and started beating the marchers....
where were the police ?--the state police have proclaimed that it was mcaulliffe that lied about weapons being stored around the city by protestors and that yes they were told to hold back any action towards the anti-protestor
.....trump was right BOTH groups were at fault, not just one..the left does not have clean hands and trump did not side with nazi's but that is the narrative libs push because it makes them look better and it is just another opportunity to bash trump, they cannot pass that by.
Today's Brownshirts need to be dealt with.
The same way the ACLU did with them back in the 70's. We are still paying the price of the violence from the civil war. Violence won't work.
Pretending they don't exist works even less.
pretending that history doesn't exist is even worse---
dems are so disgusted with their own history that they are trying to erase it and or hijack republican history as their own...
does it not seem awfully strange that after 100 yrs these statues suddenly became offensive to dems--hell they erected them in the FIRST PLACE.--no don't answer that , i already know the answer to it.
The thing is, they aren't hijacking or pretending.
These statues also didn't "suddenly" become offensive. We just are more empowered to fight hatred and bigotry now.
You seem quite confused.
Unrelated (maybe), but why don't you use capital letters to begin sentences?
does it not seem awfully strange that after 100 yrs these statues suddenly became offensive
.................................................................
Not really, It's not that complicated.
Much of the youth of America are sick of our racial past.
They know and are friends with other nationalities now in this huge melting pot and know racism is wrong.
Well said.
and true.
and thanks.
Propagating hate isn't a human right.
This is not complicated.
Donald Trump was raised in Racism by a father who was a Klan member. He could have chosen to reject that and live the life of a good and decent human being. He did not. His first encounter with the law was rejecting Blacks and Jews from renting apartments in the buildings he owned with his father, twice. Again he could have chosen to change and become a good and decent human being. He did not. Donald Trump denigrated the Handicapped and Women with disgusting and vile insults. AGAIN he could have chosen to change and to become a good and decent human being. AGAIN he chose not to!
Donald Trump you have had many more chances then you would have given to any others to change and you have chosen not to! Donald Trump you are a Racist! You are not fit, mentally or morally, to sit in the Oval Office! It's time for you and those like you to go and never return! Your poison will not be tolerated in this nation any longer! Take your Hate and your Racism and your Bigotry and get the Hell out of our country! We are better human beings then you are!
It's not complicated, Donald.
Voted up!
I have attempted to delete a number of flagged comments from my iPhone; I will check in the morning to make sure they are actually gone.
This article is locked and will not be reopened. The CoC states:
Author/seeder (with assistance from administration) moderates his/her own article. Authors/seeders are expected to foster healthy, open discussions. They are responsible for the content they submit and must exercise impartiality if/when reporting abuse. If at any point in a discussion, an author cannot moderate, that author may close the article to comments.
Bob, that clearly didn't happen here.
Furthermore, I will be writing people up, since Mac kindly asked for the name calling to end but it continued after his request. I will be reviewing and marking up the whole article as I see fit.
Please note: I will be leaving up the comments so that no one can claim that there was biased moderation. The violation will be noted and logged.