Berkeley Police Department firing stun grenades against political opposition?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:51:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Berkeley Police Department firing stun grenades against political opposition?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Berkeley Police Department firing stun grenades against political opposition?  (Read 5286 times)
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2017, 02:47:58 PM »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.
Germany, like the UK, doesn't have the First Amendment. A fact of which SUSAN CRUSHBONE (and TheDeadFlagBlues) clearly approve.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2017, 02:48:24 PM »

     DFB, I know you know better than that. The anarchists have consistently shown up and started violence.
have they? good. violence against nazis is inherently an act of self-defense and/or defense of others.

Says the user who uses their signature to celebrate the revolution that brought about a genocidal and racist regime which killed millions of people.
lol
Logged
EnglishPete
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,605


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2017, 03:19:42 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2017, 03:21:15 PM by EnglishPete »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.
Germany, like the UK, doesn't have the First Amendment. A fact of which SUSAN CRUSHBONE (and TheDeadFlagBlues) clearly approve.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. There is no censorship? Is that why and 87 year old woman was recently sentenced to eight months in prison for stating her opinions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770772/Prominent-German-neo-Nazi-convicted-Holocaust-denial.html

Is that why the German police raid the homes of people and arrest them for things they've written on the internet

https://www.thelocal.de/20160713/german-police-launch-first-nationwide-hate-speech-raids

Is that why Germany has all kinds of laws that prohibit various kinds of speech and publishing if the German state deems them 'hate speech' or 'anti-Democratic'?

Is that why the German authorities have a policy of turning a blind eye against far left violence directed at right wing dissidents (like the AfD) in order to encourage such useful (for them) anti-dissident threats and violence?

The German authorities seem to have a funny idea of what constitutes 'no censorship'.

Clearly Germany has political censorship and clearly you approve of that and think there should be more. I'm not sure why you don't just admit this?
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2017, 03:48:25 PM »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.
Germany, like the UK, doesn't have the First Amendment. A fact of which SUSAN CRUSHBONE (and TheDeadFlagBlues) clearly approve.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. There is no censorship? Is that why and 87 year old woman was recently sentenced to eight months in prison for stating her opinions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770772/Prominent-German-neo-Nazi-convicted-Holocaust-denial.html

Is that why the German police raid the homes of people and arrest them for things they've written on the internet

https://www.thelocal.de/20160713/german-police-launch-first-nationwide-hate-speech-raids

Is that why Germany has all kinds of laws that prohibit various kinds of speech and publishing if the German state deems them 'hate speech' or 'anti-Democratic'?

Is that why the German authorities have a policy of turning a blind eye against far left violence directed at right wing dissidents (like the AfD) in order to encourage such useful (for them) anti-dissident threats and violence?

The German authorities seem to have a funny idea of what constitutes 'no censorship'.

Clearly Germany has political censorship and clearly you approve of that and think there should be more. I'm not sure why you don't just admit this?

that's because one person's rights end where they begin to infringe on someone else's. not a difficult concept.
Logged
EnglishPete
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,605


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2017, 03:55:04 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2017, 04:00:41 PM by EnglishPete »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.
Germany, like the UK, doesn't have the First Amendment. A fact of which SUSAN CRUSHBONE (and TheDeadFlagBlues) clearly approve.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. There is no censorship? Is that why and 87 year old woman was recently sentenced to eight months in prison for stating her opinions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770772/Prominent-German-neo-Nazi-convicted-Holocaust-denial.html

Is that why the German police raid the homes of people and arrest them for things they've written on the internet

https://www.thelocal.de/20160713/german-police-launch-first-nationwide-hate-speech-raids

Is that why Germany has all kinds of laws that prohibit various kinds of speech and publishing if the German state deems them 'hate speech' or 'anti-Democratic'?

Is that why the German authorities have a policy of turning a blind eye against far left violence directed at right wing dissidents (like the AfD) in order to encourage such useful (for them) anti-dissident threats and violence?

The German authorities seem to have a funny idea of what constitutes 'no censorship'.

Clearly Germany has political censorship and clearly you approve of that and think there should be more. I'm not sure why you don't just admit this?

that's bc germany makes it explicit (unlike the u.s.) that one person's rights end where they begin to infringe on someone else's. not a difficult concept.
And the German state determine that opinions they don't like and want banned "infringe on someone else's rights". In the US people are able to deny historical events or engage in conspiracy theories or advocate non egalitarian views on race or sex or sexuality without "Infringing on anyone else's rights". And certainly the Free Speech rally in Berkeley weren't 'infringing on anyone else's rights' when they were subject to an unprovoked attack by antifa.

The law in the US, clearly unlike the law in Germany, doesn't recognise a right to not be offended that trumps other people's right to free speech.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2017, 04:01:58 PM »

     Germany shows us why it isn't enough to simply have words that say free speech exists; you need courts that are willing to enforce these provisions and people willing to stand for these rights, as we are fortunate enough to have in the United States.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2017, 04:31:56 PM »

     Germany shows us why it isn't enough to simply have words that say free speech exists; you need courts that are willing to enforce these provisions and people willing to stand for these rights, as we are fortunate enough to have in the United States.

Yeah, I mean in the 1800s demanding the immediate uncompensated liberation of slaves technically "infringed upon the rights of others". To convict someone of a crime here there typically needs to be both a guilty mind (mens rea) AND a guilty act (actus reus). I can think and say I want to genocide the furries, but until i take an active step to do so, no one's rights have been infringed and no act has occurred. Thought crime is an evil concept.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2017, 05:09:36 PM »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.
Germany, like the UK, doesn't have the First Amendment. A fact of which SUSAN CRUSHBONE (and TheDeadFlagBlues) clearly approve.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. There is no censorship? Is that why and 87 year old woman was recently sentenced to eight months in prison for stating her opinions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770772/Prominent-German-neo-Nazi-convicted-Holocaust-denial.html

Is that why the German police raid the homes of people and arrest them for things they've written on the internet

https://www.thelocal.de/20160713/german-police-launch-first-nationwide-hate-speech-raids

Is that why Germany has all kinds of laws that prohibit various kinds of speech and publishing if the German state deems them 'hate speech' or 'anti-Democratic'?

Is that why the German authorities have a policy of turning a blind eye against far left violence directed at right wing dissidents (like the AfD) in order to encourage such useful (for them) anti-dissident threats and violence?

The German authorities seem to have a funny idea of what constitutes 'no censorship'.

Clearly Germany has political censorship and clearly you approve of that and think there should be more. I'm not sure why you don't just admit this?

Go back to infowars, you nut.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2017, 05:10:39 PM »

country x: has laws against trespassing
y'alls fckers: wow? they're restricting people's right to freedom of movement? why does country x hate freedom?
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2017, 05:17:33 PM »

country x: has laws against trespassing
y'alls fckers: wow? they're restricting people's right to freedom of movement? why does country x hate freedom?

I take it that you're not especially sympathetic about "right to wander" or "freedom to roam" laws, then?

i think it's fair to say that wandering into someone's house is an infringement on their right to privacy, and wandering through some massive parcel of wilderness that happens to be someone's private property isn't Tongue

apologies if the phrasing was unclear
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2017, 05:28:31 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2017, 05:30:58 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Anyways, I agree that the Berkeley PD is soft, weak and allowed this to happen: they should have rounded up as many of these fascists thugs as possible at the first sign of violence. Of course, police officers anywhere and everyone are staffed with fascists and Republicans so this is probably asking too much, I realize that it's in their nature to bloody socialists and to coddle neo-Nazis so this policy is the best policy possible.

     DFB, I know you know better than that. The anarchists have consistently shown up and started violence. Demanding that the police arrest their targets when they are reacting to Antifa provocation on account of those targets being "fascist thugs" is Orwellian in the utmost.

I'm actually very serious about this. The media's portrayal of these confrontations is very skewed; the people who attend these rallies are not typical Trump supporters. They are fascists who seek to provoke violence. In the interests of fairness, I support locking up anti-fascists as well, that's a given because I'm not a nut, but the notion that one side does this and the other does not is a myth.

I'm not sure what there is to discuss here tbh. The law should be enforced in a fair manner. I hate fascists and sympathize with anti-fascists, even though they, too, are rather stupid.
Logged
EnglishPete
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,605


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2017, 05:36:30 PM »

country x: has laws against trespassing
y'alls fckers: wow? they're restricting people's right to freedom of movement? why does country x hate freedom?

I take it that you're not especially sympathetic about "right to wander" or "freedom to roam" laws, then?

i think it's fair to say that wandering into someone's house is an infringement on their right to privacy, and wandering through some massive parcel of wilderness that happens to be someone's private property isn't Tongue

apologies if the phrasing was unclear
You haven't explained why exactly you think that an 87 year old expressing her opinions on history, or people posting their opinions on the internet are 'infringing on anyone else's rights. You haven't explained why right wing dissidents like the AfD - who are subject to violence and threats that the German state turns a blind eye to - are supposed to be infringing on anyone else's rights. They may be offending plenty of people but apart from that they're not going round attacking people like antifa.

Clearly you favour censorship, you've said quite clearly that you favour censorship against people you deem to be 'nazis'. I don't know why you have a problem admitting that you favour political censorship.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2017, 05:37:06 PM »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.



looks like a free speech rally to me. ah yes, the noble nazi salute, that free speech symbol.

funny how every symbol of free speech seems to be a swastika or an apartheid south africa flag but when the red flag is flown it's a symbol of authoritarianism.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2017, 05:38:53 PM »

The people initiating the violence are always in the wrong, no matter what stupid uniform they wear or stupid thing they believe in.  And everybody should be allowed to defend themselves if attacked, I don't care whose uniform they wear either.
Logged
EnglishPete
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,605


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2017, 05:48:49 PM »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.



looks like a free speech rally to me. ah yes, the noble nazi salute, that free speech symbol.

funny how every symbol of free speech seems to be a swastika or an apartheid south africa flag but when the red flag is flown it's a symbol of authoritarianism.
As I mentioned before a couple of guys throwing up Roman salutes amongst a large crowd of people does not a nazi rally make. Furthermore the question here is about the police response to leftist aggression. I would guess that the guy in the photo is probably not a big fan of free speech. That's his opinion (assuming he's not just LARPing). That doesn't mean that he was provoking or starting any violence.

There are people in this thread who don't agree with free speech. One of them has a signature that includes a celebration of a totalitarian murderous government that abolished all freedom of speech. Does that give people the right to throw massive rocks at her 'in self defense'?
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2017, 05:50:04 PM »

Anyways, I see that people are deflecting from my chief point, which is that these are not free speech rallies. Fine, I agree that the law should be enforced impartially to punish those who physically assault others; I hope that is universally agreed upon. Nevertheless, we must not pretend that the fascist thugs who support seizing the state to curtail political activity on the left and to oppress racial/ethnic minorities embody the freedom of expression or care about the freedom of speech. They do not and this is not what they stand for. If you are a sucker who guzzles snake oil, it might be easy to fall for the ploy that Milo or goose-stepping fascists are supporting the freedom of speech; they are trying to provoke violence so that they can be martyrs.

This will be my last post in this thread.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2017, 05:53:11 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2017, 05:55:29 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.



looks like a free speech rally to me. ah yes, the noble nazi salute, that free speech symbol.

funny how every symbol of free speech seems to be a swastika or an apartheid south africa flag but when the red flag is flown it's a symbol of authoritarianism.
As I mentioned before a couple of guys throwing up Roman salutes amongst a large crowd of people does not a nazi rally make. Furthermore the question here is about the police response to leftist aggression. I would guess that the guy in the photo is probably not a big fan of free speech. That's his opinion (assuming he's not just LARPing). That doesn't mean that he was provoking or starting any violence.

There are people in this thread who don't agree with free speech. One of them has a signature that includes a celebration of a totalitarian murderous government that abolished all freedom of speech. Does that give people the right to throw massive rocks at her 'in self defense'?

I don't care about what sort of Nazi these freaks are; the man interviewed in that photo claimed he is a National Socialist. Maybe he's not a Hitlerite. Who cares. He's some sort of Nazi/fascist. The semantics don't matter.

And yes, traveling to Berkeley of all places to throw up Nazi-salutes is provoking violence in the sense that these people knew it was going to happen, prepared for it and embraced it. Should that have been the response? No, but this is what provocation looks like. If I traveled to your house and started calling you a pedophile, a child-raper and a Nazi, that would be provocation. If I did it in the public square, it would likely be legal (let's say you live in America for the sake of simplicity). If you responded to be with force, that would be illegal. However, the violence would have been provoked. I was asking for it and, in fact, demanding it.

There's nothing noble or worth defending about the creeps who went to this rally. They're barely human beings as far as I am concerned. If someone supports censoring them, I disagree with them, but that's besides the point. I have the right to discuss the ideological objectives of people who host rallies like this and to avoid discussing the violent response to them. I won't play into their narrative of martyrdom. It's sought out. They are not victims. They are wastrels, degenerates and losers.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2017, 05:53:38 PM »


they had sympathetic women of color at the nuremburg rallies, did they
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2017, 05:59:57 PM »


I'll never understand the freaks who are non-white and turn up to stand in solidarity with people who want to throw them in chains but they exist, who care tbh.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2017, 06:02:30 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2017, 06:06:09 PM by Mopolis »


I'll never understand the freaks who are non-white and turn up to stand in solidarity with people who want to throw them in chains but they exist, who care tbh.

My understanding is that they're exactly like you, except they're raised a little further to the west (or a lot further to the east).
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 17, 2017, 06:05:27 PM »


I'll never understand the freaks who are non-white and turn up to stand in solidarity with people who want to throw them in chains but they exist, who care tbh.

Ironically as good evidence as any of how little ethnicity/color is actually determinative.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 17, 2017, 06:17:31 PM »

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.

looks like a free speech rally to me. ah yes, the noble nazi salute, that free speech symbol.

funny how every symbol of free speech seems to be a swastika or an apartheid south africa flag but when the red flag is flown it's a symbol of authoritarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromberg_v._California

"Stromberg v. California was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 7–2 that a 1919 California law banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. "

I don't see what your point is. If this had been advertised as a free speech rally and people brought red flags and burned American flags and chanted death to America, it would still be a free speech rally.
Logged
EnglishPete
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,605


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 17, 2017, 06:29:01 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2017, 06:33:38 PM by EnglishPete »

And yes, traveling to Berkeley of all places to throw up Nazi-salutes is provoking violence in the sense that these people knew it was going to happen, prepared for it and embraced it. Should that have been the response? No, but this is what provocation looks like. If I traveled to your house and started calling you a pedophile, a child-raper and a Nazi, that would be provocation. If I did it in the public square, it would likely be legal (let's say you live in America for the sake of simplicity). If you responded to be with force, that would be illegal. However, the violence would have been provoked. I was asking for it and, in fact, demanding it.
I can see that throwing up Roman salutes would be provocative. However there were just a couple of of guys there doing that and antifa would have still attacked if that hadn't been done.

The rally was planned at Berkeley because that was where a previous Trump rally had been shut down by violent antifa with the complicity of the city authorities. People wanted to defend the principle that they should be able to proceed with and complete a political rally in any city or town in the country that they wanted to without far left activists having any say in the matter. They prepared for violence because they knew that they were likely to be attacked and would need to defend themselves.

To cancel or not hold the rally on the grounds that it was likely to provoke a violent response from leftist activists would be to accept the principle that, in parts of America at least, violent left wing activists get to have a partial say in who who is and isn't allowed to speak or hold rallies in public. You can see why people would find that principle so offensive and repulsive and want to protest against it.

There's nothing noble or worth defending about the creeps who went to this rally. They're barely human beings as far as I am concerned. If someone supports censoring them, I disagree with them, but that's besides the point. I have the right to discuss the ideological objectives of people who host rallies like this and to avoid discussing the violent response to them. I won't play into their narrative of martyrdom. It's sought out. They are not victims. They are wastrels, degenerates and losers.
[/quote]Sounds like you're the one with a lot of hatred in his heart.
Logged
EnglishPete
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,605


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 17, 2017, 06:32:38 PM »

I'll never understand the freaks who are non-white and turn up to stand in solidarity with people who want to throw them in chains but they exist
Its a mystery to me as well, I wish such people wouldn't support communism but its just the reality that they do.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: April 17, 2017, 06:33:02 PM »

Anyways, I see that people are deflecting from my chief point, which is that these are not free speech rallies.
I don't know wtf a "free speech rally"is.  From the selected pictures you've showed us it seems to be a neo-Nazi rally (but even that is in question).  Neo-Nazis have free speech, but they don't throw "free speech rallies".  


I suppose perhaps that every rally that offends someone is a "free speech rally".
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.