DISQUS

D. · 2 years ago

So-considering this post and the previous-is the leftist understanding of free speech, "We'll say what we want, and twist everyone else's words to fit our goals?"


Freedom of speech also includes the freedom to express that speech however you choose. If it offends me, so be it, and I have the right to get pissed. My being pissed SHOULDN'T extend to me infringing on your right of expression (key word being shouldn't, as there's certain things that, in my opinion, aren't tolerable).



White supremacists or not, they're entitled to be upset about the law, and to sue if they feel their rights are being infringed. But at the end of the day, the law's the law...and if it's upheld, not much that can be said or done.



Besides, apparently this group has pulled this stunt before, won...and then only five people showed up. Is anyone really gonna care if the same happens here?

ronnie b. · 2 years ago

d


You're more than welcome to argue the procedural aspect of white supremacists marching on MLK day. Others, however, will (acknowledge and) be much more concerned with the substance of it.

D. · 2 years ago

Ronnie,
Thing is, I see the substance. And, yeah, it ain't that great. I'm not defending the supremacists or their views (did that have to be said?)



My problem is that, essentially, we're poking fun at people who may/may not feel that their rights are being violated (I say "may/may not" because this may well all be a spectacle). And, having served, I have a problem with that. We can disagree all day (oddly enough, on this one, I don't think we do), but nobody has the right to question or satirize the way someone chooses to express their thoughts.

ronnie b. · 2 years ago

Fair enough, d. And you're not wrong on the points you raise.


I'm just practicing my verbal "jabs" this morning. :)

D. · 2 years ago

Nothing wrong with that....I'm sure this is just a warm up for me. :)

dnA · 2 years ago

D,


the article is pretty clear that they claim their rights are being violated because they're being asked to follow the same local ordinances as everyone else, including the September protestors.



No, there is no language in the Constitution that defines a "freedom from heckling". It seems obvious to me that would be a violation of my constitutional right to laugh at someone for being a dumbass.



If you can't take the heat...



And actually, my freedom to "twist someone's words" or interpret them as I see fit IS protected by the constitution, as is your right to describe it as "twisting someone else's words"



But you don't have a right not to get clowned for acting the fool. Sorry. Just move to Iran and become a mullah. You're not allowed to clown mullahs there.

qmaster · 2 years ago

I have a different take. These groups are terroist groups. Would we allow Al Keada to march down the streets of New York next 9/11? Why does this country continue to allow these groups to march? It is great to find a black blog, by the way

D. · 2 years ago

If al-Qaeda wants to March on 9/11, I'd support it. They'd get to express their rights before being packed off to their 72 virgins.


Quick way to end the war.

The Bag of Health and Politics · 2 years ago

The KKK has a base around where I live. They have rallies, and they've taken to targeting local politicians with hate literature (their favorite to pick on is the openly gay City Councilman down the road).


I have come to the conclusion, that it is best to let them do whatever they hell they want to do and not give them any attention by counter demonstrations or denying permits.



Their "speech" is abhorrent, but it is also protected by the First Amendment. When they start making threats on specific people, they absolutely should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



Just my take on them. I wish they'd go away.

Nita · 2 years ago

If the black panthers could carry their guns, the klan should be able to carry theirs. Unless they're out there specifically to pull a Joe Horn (and kill some youknowwhats)... I don't see the problem.


Let them carry them.

Nita · 2 years ago

btw, i'm not equating the panthers with the klan (i wish i had rewritten that first sentence). it's just that i remember reading about the hullabaloo that followed the panthers when they exercised their right to carry firearms. nonblacks were afraid of blacks who carried unconcealed weapons publically. to say the panthers couldn't do it was abominable. the panthers were making a point, though, and i'm glad they did it. you don't take away someone's rights just because you don't like them or you're afraid of them.


let the klan carry their guns. free speech and peaceful assembly extends to all.