No Cash For Hate, Say Mainstream Crowdfunding Firms (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Online fund-raising sites are turning their backs on activists looking to offer financial support for James Fields, the man accused of driving his car into counter-protesters at a white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday. GoFundMe, Kickstarter and other mainstream crowdfunding firms have policies that prohibit hate speech or abuse, the latest example of technology firms making it harder for far-right groups to organize online. Fields is accused of killing one woman and injuring 19 others on Saturday after the rally in Charlottesville turned violent. Supporters of Fields, who was denied bail at a court hearing in Virginia on Monday, have turned to the internet to raise money for his legal defense. GoFundMe, one of the two leading crowdfunding firms, said on Monday it has removed multiple fundraising campaigns for Fields, because the company prohibits the promotion of hate speech and violence.

Comments

Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Would this apply to Black Lives Matter? They have been responsible for a lot of hate speech, but maybe this only applies to certain kinds of hate speech.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[CQDX]

It doesn't. You can find BLM projects on GoFundMe. Nation of Islam too. The usual Marxist/Socialist movements too. This is a one sided ban. Virtue signaling.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[MightyMartian]

Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist moron wants to pretend BLM is the same as the KKK, because simple bitches attempt simple feats of moronic logic. "But what about black on white crime?" - Clueless fucking nazi cunt.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Would this apply to Black Lives Matter? They have been responsible for a lot of hate speech, but maybe this only applies to certain kinds of hate speech.

your hate speech is their fault, got it

Re:Black Lives Matter

[phantomfive]

That's a false equivalency. BLM may have some incidental violence (like many protest groups), but the goal of the movement is to reduce violence.

To make it an accurate equivalency, you'd have to find someone who was anti-white, tried to kill a bunch of white people, and then GoFundMe decided to allow a defense fund.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking about crime in the ghetto is racist.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[alvinrod]

I think it's pretty hard to target the Black Lives Matter group because its not really a group as a whole, but a collective of smaller groups that have almost no connection other than they operate under the same banner. It's very similar to the group Anonymous in that there really isn't any central command and anyone at all can decide that they want to operate under the banner.

When you have a structure like that, it's really hard to treat them as a monolith. For example, one city's BLM decided to have a cookout with their local police to try to have a friendly dialog and voice their concerns. Even if you're generally against the movement as a whole, it's pretty hard to condemn trying to come together on good terms and build understanding. On the other hand it's hard to support the BLM member who has allegedly defrauded the University of Toronto for almost $300,000 dollars even if you generally support the movement as a whole.

In general, most things are a mixed bag, but typically you're dealing with an entity that is ultimately answerable to a single person or a small group of individuals so you can still form a cohesive opinion of the whole, but I don't know if that's really possible with BLM since it's completely decentralized. I suppose it's possible to argue that the "good" parts of BLM should rebrand or distance themselves from the "bad" parts, but as a brand BLM is attractive under the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Even if you are one of those "good" parts of the movement, you can use the negative publicity as a foil to highlight the positive of your own particular subgroup within the movement.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind that WAY more white people are shot by cops..

Re:Black Lives Matter

[jellomizer]

Black Live Matters isn't a hate group.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...

Well, considering that it's statistically false...

Re:Black Lives Matter

[El Cubano]

Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...

Well, that is not hate speech. An example of BLM-related hate speech might be calling for the assassination of law enforcement officers or praising it when it happens, like what happened in Dallas.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[jellomizer]

Such a simplistic approach to the problem.
There are many times that white people have contact with the Police when they are doing something wrong, and normally they will just get a talking to and move along. A minority has a higher chance on getting arrested for the same problem.
Being in a culture where the law enforcement will not treat you justly means the local communities will put the law into their own hands, with often poor results. Thus escalating the minor offence to a bigger one.

In short growing up white you are allowed to make mistakes, if you are black the same mistake will affect you all your life. The ones who make it, normally have to live their life in full consciousnesses that they can't do anything wrong. While for the someone who is white, then most of it will fall under kids will be kids.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[bluefoxlucid]

Being more-likely to be shot if you're X than Y isn't impacted by how much of the total population are X or Y. If the two values aren't equal, something is different.

Being more-likely to be X or Y if you're shot is impacted by how much of the population is X or Y. If it's not proportional to population, something's different in those too situations.

That doesn't suggest what the difference may be. Likewise, there are other interesting comparisons: are you more-likely to be accused or convicted of a crime under one set of circumstances than another, given similar circumstances otherwise? E.g. if you're black, white, rich, poor, living in Detroit, living in San Francisco, or whatever, and a certain set of circumstances occur which lead you to be a suspect in a crime, do those circumstances also lead to conviction equally as-often? (We can't ask if you're found guilty of the crime more-frequently when you're not guilty because the courts determine that, and so the answer is of course not to the best of our knowledge.)

Re:Black Lives Matter

[alvinrod]

That's looking at the wrong statistics. What you'd want to consider is police shootings per encounter with police in order to see if there are any differences. Here's a study that does an excellent Baysian analysis of the data, which does show that black people are being shot by police at a greater rate than other racial groups.

It should be noted that this doesn't control for a lot of other factors that typically factor in to likelihood to commit crime such as socioeconomic status or family status. Being poor and from a single-parent household are two of the largest contributors to disposition towards criminal acts and these conditions are disproportionately seen in inner-city black communities. Those factors explain why blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Being black has almost nothing (there is still some unexplained parts of the gap between blacks and other groups, but that may just mean there is some factor not being controlled for.) to do with committing crime.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[epyT-R]

If it's not ok to fund white bigots then it's not ok to fund non-white bigots. It's pretty obvious the KKK et al, BLM/antifa, and BAMN all have self-serving agendas aligned along various lines, all under the guise of making the world a better place, of course.

Anyway, it's a little more complicated than you suggest.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu...

Of reported persons who died during the process of arrest, 95 percent were male. About 42 percent were white, 32 percent were black/African American and 20 percent were Hispanic or Latino. More than half (55 percent) were between ages 25 and 44, and juveniles (persons under age 18) were about three percent of all arrest-related deaths.

Among persons who committed suicide during the process of arrest, 60 percent were white, 20 percent were Hispanic or Latino and 15 percent were black/African American. About 12 percent of persons who committed suicide during the process of arrest allegedly committed homicide during or prior to the arrest.

Of reported arrest-related deaths by intoxication, black/African Americans were 41 percent of persons who died, whites were 34 percent and Hispanic or Latinos were 21 percent. During an arrest, females were more likely than males to die of intoxication (16 percent compared to 11 percent) and natural causes (12 percent compared to five percent).

This one does contradict but only when the suspect is drunk.

Over the seven year period when the arrest-related deaths were reported to BJS, the FBI estimated that state and local law enforcement officers made nearly 98 million arrests.

5000 arrest related deaths over 98 million.. Not nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be, but I'm sure we can agree that we'd like it closer to 0.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[sexconker]

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm going to take the opportunity to point out that Charles in Charge had the better theme song, but it was no replacement for Three's Company.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Or that person is correct and you're a fuckwit. Yeah, that's probably the case you SJW whore's meatcurtain.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[ganjadude]

we also dont even know enough about to him to call him anything. What you can see is that someone hit his car with a baseball bat right before he stepped on the gas. maybe he panicked and is being held accountable as if he were something he wasnt. I know i condemned him right off the bat (no pun intended) until I saw that video and now im not so sure. if an angry mob hit my car with a bat id probably step on it as well

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Altus]

Except no such thing ever happened. BLM never called for the attack and issued a statement condemning it immediately after, something our bullshit president couldn't even do after a shit stain terrorist in a charger drove over a bunch of innocent people.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/da...

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's really easy to treat them like a monolith. c.f. alt-right, republicans, islam, *chan, whatever. Media does it all the time (like I just did there :P )

What it is though, is inaccurate and unfair.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[ganjadude]

i would have a better time believing that if they didnt walk around with signs showing dead cops and screaming things like "what do we want DEAD COPS when do with want them NOW

this isnt the fringe this is the leadership

Re:Black Lives Matter

[MightyMartian]

I love how you invent a whole new narrative for BLM that appears to have little or nothing to do with what BLM is about. But hey, I get it, those uppety blacks are making noise, so we'd best go around and compare them gangsta rappers and the Black Panthers.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[malkavian]

No, BLM is recognised as a Black Power movement. 93% of Black homicides are committed by black people (84% of homicides against white people are committed by whites; while this is only a 10% difference, in the population sizes, a vast amount more white people are killed by non-whites than the other way round.
If Black Lives Matter, then to get the biggest return, they need to address the (probably cultural, gangsta, edgy, which is so popular it's practically mainstream) issues in their own community first.
But that'd not get any political points and headlines. So nobody does it, or is even allowed to speak about it.

That being said, it's pretty much a no brainer to block this (as you intimate). To my thinking, and addressing earlier in the thread, it's not because he has any particular political ideology (it's not about that), it's because the complete arse chose to drive his car straight at people. All observations are that this was a deliberate act of murder, and needs to be treated as such. We've had such things over here in Europe, and each one has been tied to extremist organisations (and planned). I suspect that this wasn't planned, but a spur of the moment thing, but it's in the same league as terror attacks. There is, quite simply, no excuse for that behaviour. There are points that you turn round and say "yeah, this is no longer political, it's legal", and what would be real bad for business is showing support for murder.
If the right want to crowd fund, sure.. Let them. If the left, or BLM want to crowd fund, sure.. They're all extreme, but it gives a useful trail on who is doing what, which may inform intelligence communities, which is useful. It also keeps them quiet (well, less violent, and more talky, which is generally a good thing).
I'm largely centre politically, with odd steps to the right of Attila the Hun, or left of Lennin (all depends on the matter at hand), and there's no way in hell that I'd want to be associated with this.
Now if they allow crowd funding for legal funds of black people accused of murdering other people, with this weight of observable evidence in the public domain, then they get strung up for hypocrisy, as you rightfully put.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you have no idea what the fuck you're babbling nazi propaganda about. Black attorney's general *(female) in business clothes are not "gangsta" you dumb pale cunt.

There are more "white wigga ganstas" in Ohio than black people in New York. You're living with your head up your ass, but it's racist rose-colored glasses on top of that.

"The Black Lives Matter movement isn't actually about saving black lives" - You aren't actually about redefining reality, you're just spinning in your shit-filled nazi diaper, kiddo.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic statistics still eludes you?

Blacks are 12.5% of the population. (To make things simple for you, that makes whites and others 87.5%).

If everything were equal, we'd expect 12.5% of police shootings to be blacks.

But it's not. According to one source[1], it's 24%. From a random sample of police shootings, for every one black shot we'd expect seven whites to be shot. That'd be "normal." In reality, for every one black shot by police, there are only three whites shot. That kind of discrepancy defies all reason.

But hey, don't let a little math stand in the way of preserving your bias, okay? Ignorance is bliss. Your betters, people like Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway will tell you what to think. It's okay.

Your local school system has an adult ed class in statistics for you. Or it would if Twitler and his academically challenged minion DeVos weren't working to defund our education system.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is inventing a new narrative. BLM in practice is very different from what they proclaim on the label. Actions are louder than words, and BLM's actions are disruptive, unlawful, and dangerous. BLM beating on cars and blocking highways and screeching "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" "what do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" makes gangsta rappers look like all words and no talk.

Black Lives Matter is the epitome of the sentiment behind the word "n*gger" (which Slashdot is "lameness filtering" now, interesting that.)

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidental violence???? Are you insane or just stupid?

Several cities, including Baltimore, would disagree with you. So would all of the innocent people beaten and the businesses that were looted and burned down.

If Black Lives Matter *REALLY* cared about black lives, they would be just as outraged with black on black crime as it is exponentially more prevalent than blue on black crime.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

i would have a better time believing that if they didnt walk around with signs showing dead cops and screaming things like "what do we want DEAD COPS when do with want them NOW

  this isnt the fringe this is the leadership

[citation needed]

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure AC was referring to raw numbers, not the proportion of whites shot to proportion of blacks shot.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[MightyMartian]

And what actions are those? The leaders of the movement have been quick to condemn any violence done in BLM's name. You are literally just making shit up to try to create a false equivalency.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[PopeRatzo]

an artifact of what Black Culture has become (gangsta, edgy).

Have you seen what White Culture has become?

https://media.boingboing.net/w...

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/...

https://o.aolcdn.com/images/di...

Re:Black Lives Matter

[ShanghaiBill]

BLM doesn't advocate violence in pursuit of their objectives. In fact, they don't even have any objectives. Many activists don't understand that to be effective, you need to have clear actionable goals. As an example of this, look at the two movements that arose in reaction to the 2008 financial bailout: Occupy Wall Street, and the Tea Party. One had clear goals, the other did not. Occupy Wall Street accomplished nothing, and has mostly faded away. Meanwhile, the Tea Party is running the country.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

No, nor Antifa. You can roll up at a free speech rally attended by liberals, libertarians, constitutionalists and conservatives to, as she said, "bash the fash" (her words). You can turn up at this rally where it was made clear that white nationalists were not welcome and be pictured holding glass bottles like the ones Antifa were throwing at centrists. You can be pictured being punched in the face for your troubles, after deliberately turning up to cause violence and then attempt to play victim. None of this is a problem to gofundme - just waiting for ISIS to set up a page.

Democracy at work app - my ass!

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite black people being grossly disproportionately responsible by race for ongoing criminal acts, some retard like yourself shows up complaining about disproportionately higher police shootings of blacks. Hint: if they stop acting like criminals more so than any other race, they stop getting shot. It's not difficult. Maybe you're just too stupid to realize that your interpretation of the statistics you're trumpeting is incorrect because you're an agenda-pushing douchebag who has an conclusion in search of a hypothesis.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist moron wants to pretend BLM is the same as the KKK

Well, technically speaking, two different things are never absolutely identical (otherwise, they wouldn't be different things). But two different things can be the same in certain respects. For example, apples and bananas are both fruits, so they are the same with respect to the "Is it a fruit?" question. But they are different with respect to the "Is it yellow?" question. That is, apples and bananas are different colors.

BLM and the KKK certainly are the same in some respects (for example, they are both political organizations that are concerned with the issue of race). But they are different in other respects. (Black Lives Matter protesters don't wear white sheets to protests, for example.) Now, you are apparently claiming that BLM is not "the same as the KKK". But you didn't describe the sense in which they are aren't the same, so I'm unable to determine whether your statement is true.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend checking the statistics again...

Despite having HALF the number of encounters with police, White people have TWICE the amount of deaths related to those encounters.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[alvinrod]

Well you (or anyone else for that matter) is free to try to build monoliths out of anything, but I'm also free to think you're an idiot for doing so. You can't stop people from making bad arguments, you can only try to train yourself to spot them and reject them as they occur.

What it is though, is inaccurate and unfair.

Life isn't fair though, so quit bitching about it. You get to post on the internet instead of slowly dying in a diamond mine in a country that largely doesn't even have electricity. If your biggest problem in life is that the media or businesses aren't perfectly objective, I think that you've got it pretty good on the whole. But if you're really that upset about it, start your own media organization. There is nothing outside of your own control that's stopping you from doing so.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[JohnFen]

That's only because that population is 10% of our population, but they are responsible for 40% of all crime.

You'll need to provide supporting evidence, as all of the stats that I've seen indicate that this is not true.

Just to preempt some of the bad "evidence" that is out there -- the evidence must cover actual crime, not arrests. It also must compensate for economic conditions.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[phantomfive]

BLM has a clearly defined goal: to draw attention to black deaths by policemen being higher than white deaths. You may say that there are reasons for this, and you did say that it's a "black power" movement, but look at the results:

As a result of BLM protests, municipalities across the country have gotten police cams, which have served to reduce police violence. Secondly, a lot of municipalities have gotten de-escalation training, with good results. These things are good for everyone, not just black people.

So you could say that as a result of BLM, Americans of all races have benefited.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[alvinrod]

As a group no, but some of their members are pretty damned hateful.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess it takes a douchebag to know a douchebag. I hope you feel good about yourself, douche. If "my agenda" makes me a douche, I'm happy to wear the label. Where can I buy a button?

Now go fuck yourself in the ass with a splintered broomstick you fuckwad.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same... They don't ask people to go with shields, peppers spray to chant strange songs; Instead most focuses on memorials, vigils or pacific protests.
Also, they don't deny bad people using movements to do bad things, in this case the great majority ran wild over other protestants... while police didn't do anything which is striking since most of the times police use high dosage of violence for minor offenses, sometimes killing kids.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "hate speech" a code word for "vehicular manslaughter" or something? Grasp at more non-resistant straws, dipshit. Everyone is on to your particular rhetoric's bullshit.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazis don't deserve civil society, they reject it and so society rejects them. This is why we were forced to shoot the dumb bitches in '39. It's not our fault, but it IS tragic, sure.

Yes innocent people will get caught up in their repugnant retarded self-loathing pity party and pay consequences, same as anything else.

But YOU don't want to live in civil society, remember whiny reichtards? GTFO and go start your own white ISIS you lazy live-at-home-and-beat-mom millenial racists.

Go pull some white bootstraps, but if we catch you spouting whiny Nazi punkass shit, we're going to fucking kill you. This is America. Nazi Germany is dead. We killed it.

No regrets, zero apologies, fuck off and die Nazi twats. You do not belong in this country. Leave or kill yourselves or get picked off one by one, we don't care which.

You are not Americans, you are the worst immigrants possible.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[jacekm]

I would add Antifa to this too. The fascist left organisation. Anywhere there is Antifa or BLM protest march there is property destruction and fighting.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to Nazis and WS where it's required that you're hate filled scum to be a part of.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

That person is wrong, plain and simple as are you. Let's take a visit to small town mid-west America. A black man, in a suit, walking down the street by himself, minding his own business is much more likely to get a cop stopping and asking his business than a group of thugish looking white high school drop out dipshits who are without a job and probably high on meth and very obviously up to no good. But will a cop stop and ask them what they are doing? Fuck no, not in a million years.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

only if the black hangs out wif udder blax.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2013, 44 percent of cop killers were white, 37 percent were black and 11 percent were Hispanic. The number of black perpetrators is much higher now. Considering The Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), which is the basis of the FBI’s national tabulation of arrests, puts most Hispanics in the “white” category means that the 13% of blacks clearly do most of the crimes and kill most police. What would you do if you were a cop? I have to go before the thought police come....

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

One member of a group does something evil, so therefore the entire group advocates doing evil? It doesn't work that way. Otherwise all groups of any kind should be condemned since all contain those who do evil. One person does not a group make.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

so when an entire BLM "protest group" (cough, cough, riot) are chanting "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" it's just a few members. But when a smaller component within the larger group of "alt-right" are nazis, everyone who disagrees with the left is a nazi... hmm HYPOCRISY they name is you

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Herkum01]

I think 98 million arrests out of a population of 300 million people seems extremely high.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think the person in question and their reaction to the officer has anything to do with it escalating?
The news would have us believe people are taken in (or worse) for mere traffic stops or something else as mundane. But the reasons for escalation change, it's never the broken tail light- it's argumentative behavior or worse.

Ever talked to an officer and be cool?
vs.
Ever talked to an officer- challenging them to explain why they're even being questioned, fussing about the man having in in for them, and standing in the street with pants hanging off hips while claiming they're being framed by neighbors or the system?

I'm not saying there are mistakes, I'm saying folks can deflect ALMOST ALL escalation by being cool & not pre-victimizing oneself.
I've had it work both ways myself and I'm white- so 'the man' will go after you if you're a sassy talking white person too. As they should do.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[ShanghaiBill]

BLM advocates nonviolence and loving engagement. When people associated with BLM have engaged in violence, the organization has denounced their actions.

Can you cite any white supremacist organization that has denounced the actions of James Fields in Charlottesville?

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticise BLM, but comparing them to Nazis is absurd.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

But they DO commit and encourage violence.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

No, BLM is recognised as a Black Power movement.

By who? Is there an accreditation board somewhere? What criteria did they meet? Mysteriously, you don't identify any.

93% of Black homicides are committed by black people (84% of homicides against white people are committed by whites; while this is only a 10% difference, in the population sizes, a vast amount more white people are killed by non-whites than the other way round.

Mysteriously, you use percentages, not numbers, otherwise you'd have to admit a vast amount is....around 300.

Easily explained by the difference in population, and not particularly meaningful. No matter how much you want it to be.

If Black Lives Matter, then to get the biggest return, they need to address the (probably cultural, gangsta, edgy, which is so popular it's practically mainstream) issues in their own community first.

What issues are those, and why do you think they matter? Maybe you should address how people think it is a fabrication?

But that'd not get any political points and headlines. So nobody does it, or is even allowed to speak about it.

What are you talking about? It gets headlines, and lots of political points. Mysteriously, of course, you want to complain about that because it gets you political points. And you know what, people talk about it.

Maybe you should stop with your talking point where you claim they don't. Those points aren't even worth it.

Now if they allow crowd funding for legal funds of black people accused of murdering other people, with this weight of observable evidence in the public domain, then they get strung up for hypocrisy, as you rightfully put.

You'd also have to string up the folks who complained about money given to support Mumia Abu-Jamal. I wonder how many of them changed their tunes. Mysteriously.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[penandpaper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump denouncing David Duke in 2000, that is 17 years ago.

But that isn't soon enough for fucktard Altus. He should have denounced the KKK back in 1986 I guess.

What a moron you are. But you really aren't interested in the truth, as your actions show.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,”

Fuck you. Leftist shill.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Black lives matter was organized to help address the systemic and racial issues that are devastating the Black community and leading to genocidal conditions. White nationalists are advocating for more racial abuses and advocates for racial superiority. I know it might be hard to understand snowflake but these are two entirely different things. I know you do t like the fact that Black people can try to come together to fight for equality but stop bullshitting people. White nationalists are the modern KKK and their violence unlike BLM, is only meant to stop people trying to fight for equality. So stop already I know you think your skin color makes you believe you have a supreme intellect, but this stupid lying childish bs doesn't demonstrate it.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[cayenne8]

...It also must compensate for economic conditions.

Err...why?

Crime is crime, no matter if you're poor or rich.

Robbing someone at gunpoint is never justified, not even a little.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Obfuscant]

I think 98 million arrests out of a population of 300 million people seems extremely high.

Over seven years, and considering that some people are arrested on a weekly or monthly basis, I don't think it's out of line. It says "98 million arrests", not "98 million different people arrested..."

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, because the Great Retard apparently didn't know who he was last year.

âoeWell, just so you understand, I donâ(TM)t know anything about David Duke, OK? I donâ(TM)t know anything about what youâ(TM)re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,â Trump said on CNNâ(TM)s State of the Union. âoeI know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists.â

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then maybe stop rioting?

Re: Black Lives Matter

[jeremyp]

Evidence please.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[BradMajors]

Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...

Regardless of the fact that the reverse is actually true.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Obfuscant]

I love how you invent a whole new narrative for BLM that appears to have little or nothing to do with what BLM is about.

"It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements. It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement." -- BLM

If you look up the Black Liberation Movement that BLM refers to, you will see that the Black Panther Party was a part of that movement, too.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that hard really.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[VocationalZero]

At the risk of being called a bigot, cops are killed at a much higher rate by minorities with guns than whites with guns. They profile out of a sense of self-preservation, most of the time. Don't get me wrong, it is tragic whenever an innocent person gets killed, but this is not a simple case of "the cops hate minorities". And again, it is simply unacceptable that any people at all are discriminated in a way that gets them killed, but the vast, vast majority of confrontations of officers with minorities, even when armed, do not lead to shots fired by the officer. It is, of course, still a problem whenever it happens, but it really doesn't happen as often as fear-mongers would like you to believe.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Bert64]

By the same metric, for every one black criminal we'd expect 7 non black criminals... Everything being equal we'd expect 12.5% of the prison population to be black, matching the general population.

And yet US government statistics show that blacks account for 37.8% of the prison population (source: https://www.bop.gov/about/stat...)

If black are more likely to commit crimes, and be caught doing so, it stands to reason that they are also more likely to have interactions with police.

That's also not considering the nature of the crime which has attracted police attention and the behaviour of the suspect. A member of a known violent street gang is far more likely to provoke a police shooting than someone who is committing fraud from behind a desk.

How you behave when confronted by police is also a significant factor. If you comply with their instructions and hand over your weapons (or prove to them that you don't have any weapons) then your very unlikely to get shot. If you behave in a threatening way and the officers believe you might kill them then the natural self preservation instinct kicks in.
Many people, white black and others have non violent interactions with police all the time. Just comply with their instructions and be polite and you won't get shot, if you feel you were treated unfairly file a complaint later.

So blacks being more likely to be shot by police is not necessarily a symptom of racism (indeed many blacks have been shot by black or other non white police officers), it's a symptom of blacks being more likely to commit crimes, more likely to attract police attention and more likely to react aggressively when confronted.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You know who else used dehumanizing labels to justify violence?

The Nazis.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Bert64]

People can be arrested more than once over a period of 7 years, infact most arrests are probably repeat offenders rather than 98 million different individuals being arrested.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Evil Kerek]

It's hardly incidental. You've obviously not watched videos of those thugs protesting.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[ShanghaiBill]

It's not that hard really.

This is an example of BLM denouncing violence. The GPP was requesting evidence for the opposite: BLM advocating or excusing violence. So far no evidence for that has been provided.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently that wasn't a Black Lives Matter march. For the hard-hearted rightwingers, any evidence, no matter how false or doctored, must be real and confirms their prejudices.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Zero__Kelvin]

The word Nazi is not a synonym for bigot. You can be a bigot without marching through an area that you know doesn't want you there shouting Heil Trump, carrying Tiki torches you got at the Dollar store, giving the Nazi salute, and running young women and others over with your Redneck Mobile.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[JohnFen]

Because people who are poor (of any race) are more likely to get caught committing crimes, and black people are more likely to be poor. So if you want to support the hypothesis that black people are inherently more crime-prone, then you need to take away the skew that economic effects introduce.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[hey!]

In any case it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The equivalency argument concludes that to consistent, if campaigns like this one are disallowed, then no campaigns by BLM whatsoever should be allowed.

But that logically holds only if anything that anyone does under the label "BLM" is morally equivalent to murder.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

60 hours later. Forgot that part didn't you.

Alt right tard. See we can play this game too.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

And when that happened, BLM official spokespeople were quick to condemn it. President Obama condemned it unreservedly, pretty much as soon as he heard about it. There was no equivocating, no exercise in apologetics, no talk of "both sides were wrong": they condemned the violence.

See the difference?

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

if an angry mob hit my car with a bat id probably step on it as well

Really? You value an inanimate object over other people's lives? Time to lay off the weed, dude.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Some Slashdot users are hateful too. We should ban the website.

No seriously the individual people are not in question here. The overall group is. Bringing individuals into it is either a false flag operation or shows that you can't follow the conversation.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[naughtynaughty]

Whenever you see someone play an clip of just a short segment they are likely trying to fool you, and you were fooled.

The car was traveling at a high rate of speed prior to someone taking a bat to the car. The video was edited to remove the portion more than a fraction of a second prior to the vehicle being struck and the video was slowed down and then sped back up after the strike.

They also showed and even shorter clip where the car passes by the photographer and a bicycle is in the background. In that one you can see the considerable distance the car travels compared to how far the bicycle traveled. This is with a clear view of a completely blocked street of protestors marching towards the vehicle. Why would an avowed neo-Nazi even be on that street in his car in the first place, much less driving towards a crowd of protesters? He had other side streets he could easily have turned off onto but instead continued towards the crowd.

The obvious answer is the correct answer, despite the many apologists who have come up with a variety of alternative facts and doctored, misleading video clips as well.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[naughtynaughty]

Oh how you weep for those "one sided bans" that won't let neo-Nazi's raise money.

Boo hoo

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Grim Beefer]

Black Lives Matter is not a hate group with a mission of violence. I have nothing good to say about any religion, but there' also nothing inherently violent about the Nation of Islam. There's no reason whatsoever to compare any of the things you mention to neo-nazis, unless we accept the tacit assumptions of your poisonous mentality.

In fact, any political movement is almost certainly fine SO LONG AS THEY AREN'T OPENLY ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Like, seriously, do you REALLY not even see the fucking difference? Seriously? Scary fucking times.

 

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Grim Beefer]

Bullshit. I obviously see the tactic here, just keep repeating a falsehood until the weakminded believe it, but it still doesn't make it any more true. BLM is not responsible for "hate speech", violence, etc. as this is just a blatant lie to try and force some kind of vague false equivalency, and keep people on the fence.

Their mission, and goals, are not ones of violence or hatred, unlike the FUCKING NAZIS.

God damn dude. It felt like there used to be a time where Nazis were basically treated like pedophiles, with people doing everything they could to avoid association with such, and rightfully so. It's legitimately fucking terrifying how many of you are pretty cozy with the most blatant enemies of human existence nowadays.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Video from 2000. 17 years earlier you regressive left tard.

Yea, we can play that game, go back to supporting segregation with the rest of the DNC and their KKK members like Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Xac]

They should stop committing so many crimes then.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[ArmoredDragon]

I don't know about BLM, but nation of islam certainly has and does. Antifa does as well, and yet:

https://www.gofundme.com/Antif...

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand. Be submissive towards the police (Yes officer, no sir) else there's a good chance they'll arrest you for something you didn't do, slap you around, plant drugs or shoot you. Whatever you do, don't behave like a human being who has rights.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

His name was Micah Xavier Johnson.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[bestweasel]

It still seems extremely high. The arrest rate for the UK for the same period was one eighth of the population rather than one third.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being such a racist bigot.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Pointing out the greater likelihood of being murdered by a black man than a white man despite being 6% of the population is hate speech. You have supported that position ferociously in the past.

Why not apply the same principle to police?

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

One member of a group does something evil, so therefore the entire group advocates doing evil? It doesn't work that way. Otherwise all groups of any kind should be condemned since all contain those who do evil. One person does not a group make.

lol. Kinda like, everybody that doesn't want a statue torn down is a nazi because, nazis showed up?

If liberals didn't have a double standard, they wouldn't have any standards at all.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Suuuure, they do.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you have no idea what the fuck you're babbling nazi propaganda about. Black attorney's general *(female) in business clothes are not "gangsta" you dumb pale cunt.

There are more "white wigga ganstas" in Ohio than black people in New York. You're living with your head up your ass, but it's racist rose-colored glasses on top of that.

"The Black Lives Matter movement isn't actually about saving black lives" - You aren't actually about redefining reality, you're just spinning in your shit-filled nazi diaper, kiddo.

Ever been to "heyjackass.com" ?

There, you can see how effective sitting around caring about black lives is.... or whatever BLM does.

I, for one, like the "Shot in the junk o meter" for extra hilarity. Oh, and check out those arrest clearance rates. Currently 13%! If actual nazis wanted to do bad stuff to black people, those odds are pretty good.

Nobody tell the nazis the real fun is in Chicago. The Blues Brothers must have scared them all away I guess.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well then. I guess it's all ok. They "condemned" it.

Behind closed doors, the conversation probably went something like this:

"Good job, folks. Keep up the good work. I'll just 'condemn' *wink* your actions to the media and those idiots will go away happy. Same time next week!"

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Come back and claim this once there's neo-Nazi music videos being played as #1 hits on MTV, with the neo-Nazi artists hosting award shows, starring in movies, getting product endorsements, generally being held in high regard by the public media, and the neo-Nazi attire, goosestep, and attitude being publicly displayed throughout schools.

If this happens, maybe then you can claim to be qualified to speak about "white culture".

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

So where are all the undoctored videos supporting your claim? Surely they would be numerous in this day and age where it seems everyone has a cell phone, and at any event there are numerous cameras capturing video from every angle constantly. Are you going to tell me NONE of these antifa agitators had their phones going and captured this? Or are they are the ones who released the video and clipped it so that it would give the perp a means of legal defense? Extremely improbable.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm happy to wear the label. Where can I buy a button?

Now you're a douche *and* you still haven't solved the problem. Perhaps you might look at the reasons why things are happening, and what we can do which might "help", where "help" means permitting people of all colors to have a good chance at a life where they are productive, happy, and non-criminal.

For example, we could invest in schools, go zero-tolerance on carrying weapons, or a million other things.

Or we could, like, you know, ignore it and stuff.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

So the public actions of the leaders aren't good enough for you? So you feel that you know a better truth about the motivations of these leaders when the best evidence you have is pure speculation about what happens behind closed doors? Perhaps you are correct but your rhetoric is hardly credible if the best you have is pure speculation.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Darinbob]

So you're saying that only some of the white supremacists are pretty damned hateful?

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you expect, a rational argument? The GP is an 11yo and inarticulate. The large percentage of expletives in his rambling gives him away

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You're totally right. If you didn't do anything wrong you need to act aggressively towards the police so they'll see from your anger that you're clearly innocent.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[geekymachoman]

> In short growing up white you are allowed to make mistakes, if you are black the same mistake will affect you all your life.

This is such bullshit it pisses me right off. It depends on the perspective and situation actually, and in some cases it's true and in some it's not, but just generalizing it like this "oh if you're black you're fucked" is stupid.
I'm white, and compared to any Americans or western European I had it harder than you can even imagine, just by measuring opportunity factor, never mind 15 other things that I'm too lazy to mention. And what about Asians ?

I'm pretty sure that black person coming from a reasonably well of family, surrounded by others who are also well of, are NOT randomly targeted by police. I'm pretty sure that black students on Harvard are not being targeted randomly and harassed by police, and I'm sure that black people in high income (read upper middle class) areas are not randomly targeted.

The 2 black dudes that this all started with were thugs. Try being a police man if you don't know if a 12 year old kid has a gun in his underpants, and this is what you wake up to every morning. I'm not justifying killing innocent people, I'm saying nothing is 2 dimensional like it appears on the surface.. and saying "black people have less chance to screw up" is 2dimensional.

I would give my left nut to be born and raised in country like US, a country that gave an opportunity to everybody. Educated black people will say the same thing, the punks and thugs and people that have no idea what the fuck they're doing are going to protest and whine and bitch about, in this case, skin color, because they're losers, not because they're black. #BLM

You bitch and whine all you want, and in the meantime all those immigrants from all over the world will be coming over there, working hard and taking opportunities country like US gives to all, and make something out of their lives. What privileges do you think they have ?

(South) Eastern Europeans are white too. You have no idea what kind of lives they had and what "privileges" they didn't have.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry mate, but if you're born in America, you're American, and natural born Americans cannot have that revoked. This is in the constitution, the same constitution that allows you to make that post without fear of the government arresting you.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

So his life wasn't in danger? He had every right to floor it.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's turn this on its head a bit:

" You are more likely to be shot by a black person than white if in the Chicago area "

Is that hate speech ? Or simply a fact ?

Or, is it simply a fact we cannot publicly say because everyone and their brother are easily offended and condemn it using the " Hate Speech " card ?

The 'hate speech' label is a relatively new concept and nothing more than an erosion of your First Amendment rights. You start down a very dark path when you start arresting folks for saying things you don't agree with.

Once upon a time, the First Amendment went like this: " I may not like what you have to say, but the First Amendment gives you the right to say it. "

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The leaders of Islam do the exact same thing when their followers goes stupid and walks a bomb-vest into a mall.

WE are a peaceful group. It's only those radical few that are causing your problems. :|

They are awfully quick to condemn it, but they do absolutely nothing to prevent it in the first place do they ?

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Cederic]

If everything were equal, we'd expect 12.5% of police shootings to be blacks.

Thing is, things are not equal. So no, we wouldn't expect 12.5% of police shoots to be of people that are black.
http://www.latimes.com/science...

We'd also expect, everything being equal, 12.5% of people shooting the police to be black. It's 39.7%:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2014...

But hey, everything isn't equal. Look deeper and stop relying on base statistics.

That kind of discrepancy defies all reason

No. Exploring it may beyond your limited intelligence but please, do

let a little math stand in the way of preserving your bias

Maybe a little more than you're capable of, but at least fucking read the work being done by others.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone hits your car with a bat, I sure hope you don't turn to murder as a solution.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you cite any white supremacist organization that has denounced the actions of James Fields in Charlottesville?

He's not an organization but the president was pretty hard on the guy yesterday, called him a murderer.

Well I guess he didn't explicitly say that being a murderer is bad so maybe it doesn't count.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[cayenne8]

Because people who are poor (of any race) are more likely to get caught committing crimes, and black people are more likely to be poor. So if you want to support the hypothesis that black people are inherently more crime-prone, then you need to take away the skew that economic effects introduce.

So, you're saying that poor black people can't help themselves committing crime, and therefore a fudge factor needs to be put in....???

Seriously?

Crime is CRIME....it is a very easy number to attribute.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

But they DO commit and encourage violence.

If you want to go that way, every speech/activity can encourage violence. Simple enough?

Re: Black Lives Matter

[jellomizer]

Unless you are acting too innocent. Then what are you hiding.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...

Insightful post? Seriously?

What you said is similar to pointing out your shirt color is likely to make other people think about poo if you are wearing it with jeans is clearly a hate speech to jeans? Don't argue that clothes and humans are different. They are the same if clothes are humans.

Besides, the statement is actually pointing out "stereotype" of how others seeing black race. It is more on the neutral side and sadly it is true. A hate speech is a subset of free speech, and it should be identified in a category of direct provoking violence toward others.

For example, calling you a faqgot out of nowhere for no reason (or toward a group you belong to) is a hate speech because the person is directly provoking you to start a fight. However, if you are fighting (physical/verbal) with the person and the person is calling you a faggot, it is a free speech because you and the person are already in a fight (not provoking).

Re:Black Lives Matter

[JohnFen]

That's a serious misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was that if you are poor, you are more likely to get caught committing crimes. Race has nothing to do with it. Which is why if you're trying to support the idea that black people are inherently more prone to crime, your supporting evidence needs to take the economic skew out of the data -- because that's a different cause than the one you're trying to prove.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[phorm]

It's an interesting part of society, and if we could learn a similar lesson for stuff like wages or other social conditions it would be nice.

Trickle-down is bullshit, but still a favorite of politicians etc because - surprise - they benefit from it.

Add a bunch of money at the top and it gets hoarded, wasted, and maybe a little bit falls down here and there.

Invest in raising the floor, many of the benefits flow upward. People with more money will patronize businesses more. Better access to counselling/detox means less addicts, which reduces homelessness/crime. When people have a roof over their heads, they can better avoid certain issues than when on the streets, and better contribute to society.

More people in the lower/mid end = more taxpayers. Upper end means more loopholes. etc

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the black guy shot in his car after saying he had a gun permit included in "arrest-related deaths" ? I wouldn't think so, so this is not the right statistic to use.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

One member of a group does something evil, and suddenly the group insists they weren't one of them. No True Whatever, as it were.
No, it's cool to hate all white people because of some shit their ancestors did or trailer trash say. Any other group gets to disown the troublemakers and get off scot free.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you heard but the majority of those in the rally where White nationalists. If anything there might have been a sprinkle or two of those that just like libertarian values but let's be real Alt-Right is KKK reborn.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it funny how the Trump Nazis were pushing to deny birthright citizenship for brown immigrants during his campaign and few raised concerns? But yea, this is america and we are fighting to keep it America not 1930s Germany or the Nazi Valhalla.

A nation United of people of all races, colors and Creed's will stand up and beat the Nazis again and we will come out better for it.

Re: Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Human society is a pretty funny thing. It seems like the only thing required for any given group to start having a really bad time in life is for everybody else to start thinking that they deserve whatever happens to them.

Nazis deserve whatever happens to them. If you advocate for the annihilation of others, watch how everybody else takes a step back and lets you operate without that social safety net.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[david_thornley]

Omigod, BLM and the Black Panthers were associated in some way with the same movement! BLM must be teh evilz.

Did you have any relatives who served in WWII? Then they're associated with Hitler.

Look, if you have some actual evidence against Black Lives Matter, feel free to pull it out and post it. Heck, if you have actual evidence against the Black Liberation Movement as a whole, post it. Don't pull irrational crap.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[david_thornley]

That you had it hard for some reason is completely irrelevant to discussing white privilege. Whether your life would have been harder if you were black is relevant.

Moreover, you are pretty sure of things that you don't actually know about, and that's always bad to reason from.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[david_thornley]

The crime statistics are dubious. Statistically, for the same behavior, blacks are a lot more likely to be convicted than whites. If we had statistics based on actual actions and amount of evidence, we could correct for that.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Obfuscant]

Did you have any relatives who served in WWII? Then they're associated with Hitler.

Wow. Anyone who fought against The Third Reich was an associate of Hitler in your eyes. Very very poor attempt at Godwinning the discussion. Pathetic, I'd say.

Look, if you have some actual evidence against Black Lives Matter,

I quoted from their own website. One of their goals is the rebuilding of the Black Liberation Movement. The Black Panthers were part of the Black Liberation Movement, not opposed to it. That makes the connection between the two valid. But it also shows that the BLM goal is not just bringing a racial issue to light. It's not "Black Visibility", it is "Black Liberation".

Don't pull irrational crap.

You mean like the "serving in WWII makes you an associate of Hitler" crap?

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Those police cameras have also reduced the number of police brutality accusations. It works both ways.

The main problem with BLM is the idea that all police shootings are unjustified, which is not the case. The vast majority of police shootings, with both black and white victims, happen because the suspects engage in criminal acts, run from police, resist arrest, and threaten safety. The last point is important. If you are hiding your hands, assume a fighting or shooting stance, or are holding a weapon and don't comply, you should expect to be shot.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[ebvwfbw]

Open up your eyes Bill.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[ebvwfbw]

Fascism is left by definition. You can't say Nazi without saying Socialist. They've been lying for years, trying to make people think that Nazism is on the right. Right of Communism, left of socialism.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[ebvwfbw]

And the examples they point out? Black people that just committed a violent crime. Don't shoot my armed robber son.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears that none of the groups (or ideologies) you listed appear to exist primarily for the reason of destroying all humans via genocide, so maybe that's why Nazis are banned? Because they want to genocide the entire world?

Re:Black Lives Matter

[david_thornley]

Okay, how about this connection? I was against the invasion of Iraq. I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list then, for some unknown reason, and it was also against the Iraq invasion. Does that make me a Nazi?

Seriously, you say the Black Liberation Movement must be teh evilz because the Black Panthers supported it, and then that Black Lives Matter must be teh evilz because they support it. You're reasoning that, if an evil organization is for a cause, all organizations who believe in that cause must be evil. How about this: some very good people I know are against Nazis. Antifa is against Nazis. Therefore, by the same reasoning, Antifa must be good. I don't think either of us will agree with that conclusion.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[ganjadude]

ughh no, if they are hitting the car its not a far stretch that they might take the driver out next. If it was simply a parked car arrest them sure but hitting someones car with them driving in it is a legit reason to run people over to ensure you stay safe

First First Amendment Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, this is not a violation of the First Amendment.

BLM

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet I doubt they will ban Black Lives Matter, even though they spew just as much hate and have killed at least as many people,

Re:BLM

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet I doubt they will ban Black Lives Matter, even though they spew just as much hate and have killed at least as many people,

Who has GoFundMe killed lately?

Meet the new judge

[Calydor]

So now it's up to crowdfunding sites to decide who can and who cannot get good legal representation?

This isn't about supporting hate speech - it's about giving a guy a proper lawyer so the courts can do what they're supposed to do.

Re:Meet the new judge

[__aaclcg7560]

Public defenders are always available.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Anonymous Coward]

So now it's up to crowdfunding sites to decide who can and who cannot get good legal representation?

This isn't about supporting hate speech - it's about giving a guy a proper lawyer so the courts can do what they're supposed to do.

The courts can do exactly what they're supposed to do... appoint a lawyer if the defendant can't afford it. Show me a law that says this is Kickstarter's responsibility.

Re:Meet the new judge

[__aaclcg7560]

You can't expect a poor white man to put up with a public defender.

FTFY - Yes, I do.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

Post 9/11, plenty of law firms (including the one AG Holder worked for) focused on criminal defense of accused terrorists, insisting that even they deserved adequate representation.

I have to wonder GoFundMe would have allowed for the fund raising for someone who appeared to be guilty as sin, but still had the right to good legal representation.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Anonymous Coward]

He said a -proper- lawyer.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Anonymous Coward]

He said "good" legal representation, not lowest common denominator.

Re:Meet the new judge

[rwiggers]

Also they're just not offering help in rising the funds, instead of blocking access to funds.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Anonymous Coward]

The courts can do exactly what they're supposed to do... appoint a lawyer if the defendant can't afford it

If you are ever on trial, I hope for your sake you do not go with the cheapest/free option WRT legal representation. If you have the ability, through cash in the bank, sell-able assets, or donations, hire the best lawyers you can... regardless if you are innocent or guilty.

Show me a law that says this is Kickstarter's responsibility.

Nice strawman. No one has claimed it is unlawful for Kickstarter or GoFundMe to do what they did.

There his a higher principal at place here which is being rather visibly injured.

Like it or not, this guy has the legal right to be a racist dick, it doesn't mean we should applaud others who decide to be just as bigoted or intolerant in return.

Re:Meet the new judge

[oh_my_080980980]

Show me the law that says hiring a lawyer amounts to hate speech....

Re:Meet the new judge

[alvinrod]

It's a private company and they should have freedom of association. People like to think its a one-way street where the company suddenly has all this power, but you are just as free to boycott or not associate with companies that take actions or hold positions that you do not support.

Crowdfunding sites aren't the only way for others to support individuals. Even before the internet existed, I remember plenty of local fundraisers at churches or through other organizations like the VFW back in the day to raise money for people who had fallen on hard times or experienced other financial hardships. Those were mostly for people who were diagnosed with cancer or had a spouse die suddenly or tragically instead of some skinhead scum driving a car into a crowd of people, but that hardly matters. People were able to raise money for other people long before sites like kickstarter or indiegogo existed. I think they'll still be able to manage if they really want to do so.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Altus]

He certainly has the right and if he cannot afford a lawyer one will be appointed for him... chances are one of his worthless confederate terrorist brethren will end up providing him representation pro-bono. He has the right and he will be represented but that doesn't mean that a fund raising website has to facilitate that in some way.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Anonymous Coward]

There his a higher principal at place here which is being rather visibly injured.

Scorched Earth only hurts the intended target... Obviously.

Re:Meet the new judge

[EndlessNameless]

There his a higher principal at place here which is being rather visibly injured.

Not at all.

He will have legal representation. Almost anything is adequate in this case, though. His act was caught on several cameras, so it's not like his lawyer has much to do. Maybe a plea deal.

At most, his lawyer could get plus/minus a few years on a plea in the face of overwhelming evidence. The plates on his car are visible, and his mom and teachers have both said he was alt-right with other signs of radicalization.

A legal defense fund is wasted money. That asshole is going to jail for a long time, no matter how much money is sunk into his defense.

Like it or not, this guy has the legal right to be a racist dick, it doesn't mean we should applaud others who decide to be just as bigoted or intolerant in return.

His "right to be a racist dick" ended when he decided to murder people who happened to be protesting against his beliefs.

Not sure where you live, but the right to be a murderer is not established in American law.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Anonymous Coward]

A legal defense fund is wasted money. That asshole is going to jail for a long time, no matter how much money is sunk into his defense.

Then shouldn't you be supporting sinking as much cash into it as possible? Every dollar that goes into this person's defense in what you seem to think is a guaranteed open-and-shut case, is a dollar that cannot be put towards something that might actually pan out.

Re:Meet the new judge

[sethstorm]

Not sure where you live, but the right to be a murderer is not established in American law.

The Clinton family would happily convince you otherwise with their long trail of bodies.

Re:Meet the new judge

[Cederic]

when he decided to murder people

I see. You've already determined guilt without allowing a defense and are using that decision to argue against allowing a defense.

Not sure where you live, but the right to be a murderer is not established in American law.

No, but the right to a fair trial is.

Re:Meet the new judge

[david_thornley]

It's pretty obvious who did it. I've seen large chunks of Slashdot come to firm conclusions about guilt and innocence with much less evidence.

Nor is he being denied the right to a fair trial. He gets one on the same basis as any other person. He can get the representation he can afford, or a public defender, just like anyone else. If you have problems with that concept, you also should have problems with a large number of poor people who are in that exact situation, without people financially supporting them.

He's not even being denied the ability to get other people to contribute to his legal defense fund. People did that before the internet was widely available. There's no requirement that anybody in particular contribute to his defense, and no requirement that anybody in particular help him raise money. Crowdfunding sites aren't harming him in the least; they're just not helping him. Are you proposing that crowdfunding sites be required to support any campaign that applies that doesn't actually break the law?

Problematic as a precedent

[FooAtWFU]

Some day an innocent man is going to set up a crowdfunding campaign for his defence and is going to get it shut down because he's been pre-emptively judged guilty. It's that old "first they came for the (x)" story, except this time they came for the Nazis, and it's all that more seductive because the Nazis deserve it.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[bobbied]

THIS!

We all need to be guarding the other's rights no matter how repugnant the other's opinions (or actions) are to us. A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged. If we don't slow down and realize this, we are going to have no real justice, no real democracy. It will be mob rule, where those who are the angriest and most violent will rule with impunity, in short anarchy will rule with all it's violence and fury and bring with it death and destrcution.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[michiganbob]

Since when has crowdfunding been a requirement for justice? These sites can deny service to whomever they like. If people don't like it, they're welcome to create their own crowdfunding site.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[skids]

A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged.

Nobody is stopping his supporters from writing stuff on a cardboard box and standing at intersections. I don't see a problem here.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[skids]

Oops.. meant to add: "with a tin can"

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Calydor]

Ever since getting a lawyer who will even pretend to care about the case started costing more per hour than the average citizen earns in a week.

Next question.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Aboroth]

Crowdfunding sites are not necessary for collecting money. I await your next stupid response.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[VocationalZero]

Some day an innocent man is going to set up a crowdfunding campaign for his defence and is going to get it shut down because he's been pre-emptively judged guilty.

So you are presuming this guy is guilty? Isn't that anathema to what you are arguing for? Everyone has a right to a fair trial. No one has a right to have it paid for by a crowdfunding site.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

We do. This is why taxpayers fund public defenders who are available to everyone. If you think they're not good enough, campaign to invest more money for this service rather than promoting the 'better justice for those with money' system.

A private company is under no obligation to help a defendant receive better legal counsel than the average person.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[VocationalZero]

They know who he is, they can always cut him a check. No one is entitled to crowdfunding.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Gilgaron]

Sure, what does that have to do with crowdfunding?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[jellomizer]

If you cannot afford and attorney one will be provided.
Now this is going to be a high profile case, with a lot of solid evidence, if this attorney could find a way to do anything to help him, this would look golden on any job interview for a big high paying firm.

If this was some drug dealer and only getting 15 seconds on the local news. He may just make sure the court doesn't give the death penalty, but for this case the attorney will probably be doing his best. Just because he is in a visible position.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[oh_my_080980980]

They're stopping people from providing funds for a lawyer. Perhaps you'll understand some day. Ass-hole.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[oh_my_080980980]

A private company is under no obligation to STOP someone from receiving money to hire a lawyer.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[oh_my_080980980]

Who said they were necessary. I await your next stupid post.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[MightyMartian]

So what makes you decide to donate money to a crowdfunding site to raise money for those that cannot afford a good lawyer is a white supremacist like James Fields Jr., and, not say the tens of thousands of minority accused who make up the lion's share of people who are forced due to a lack of money to pay for their own attorney? All of sudden, being stuck with a private defender is a big problem when it's some white Nazi who can't afford a lawyer, but it never bothered you before?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlawful assembly, you're causing counter-protestors to become violent, move along citizen, before we detain you for starting a violent riot.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever tried to get a public defender? You have to be destitute to begin with, sign over any immediate possession of value, and agree to have your wages garnished to pay the defender. Maybe you should take a step outside of your ivory tower?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

They can just use the rest of Internet. Piece of shit

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has crowdfunding been a requirement for justice? These sites can deny service to whomever they like. If people don't like it, they're welcome to create their own crowdfunding site.

And set up your own internet provider and hosting while you dig up your own trenches to lay cables and launch your own satellites? Not that I am a big fan of Nazis. May be "commies" are next.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

They're stopping people from providing funds for a lawyer. Perhaps you'll understand some day. Ass-hole.

No, the are stopping people from demanding that you take their money and ensure that some other person's lawyer receives it.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[bobbied]

A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged.

Nobody is stopping his supporters from writing stuff on a cardboard box and standing at intersections. I don't see a problem here.

Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here? Perhaps the ends (silencing repugnant speech) justifies the means (ignoring the bill of rights)?

I'm not saying the "crowd sourced funding" companies don't have the right to refuse, I'm just pointing out that we just might letting the camel's nose into the tent by just accepting the idea that the accused don't deserve to ask for help with their legal costs. We need to error on the side of caution here and stay as far away from acting like a lynch mob rushing to judgment as we can. I've heard that there *might* be some undisclosed circumstances in play here as well and we need to whoa up and let law enforcement do their jobs, bring the appropriate charges and prove them in court, while letting the accused have the benefit of being presumed innocent until convicted. After all, this IS how the US Constitution says this works... One doesn't get tried in the court of public opinion and condemned by the mob in our system.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[fightinfilipino]

They're stopping people from providing funds for a lawyer. Perhaps you'll understand some day. Ass-hole.

no they're not. explain to me how supporters are blocked from sending this guy checks or cash. or sending whoever the attorney is checks or cash. answer: they're not.

also explain to me why GoFundMe et al should be forced to facilitate the funding of a murderer? answer: why the fuck should they be?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Its interesting how things are reported. When Subject_A drove into a pizzaria in France and killed a young girl the press had no trouble saying that Subject_A had done so. When Subject_B drove into a crowd and killed a woman the press insists that Subject_B /allegedly/ drove his vehicle into the crowd.

Unlike some crimes there is no real question in this case as to who was involved. After OJ murdered Nicole Brown there was (rightfully) a presumption of innocence. But you could safely say that OJ led the police on a low-speed celebrity parade.

In this particular case there really isn't any question as to who was behind the wheel of the vehicle and what the vehicle did. However, motivation and intent are not established. Did he /intend/ to kill people? Did he /accidentally/ drive into a crowd and then freak out, leaving the scene of the crime?

Allegations of criminal conduct carry a presumption of innocence, that is true. But there is no doubt as to his having been the driver, nor is there any doubt as to his nazi sympathies. Those aren't crimes, so why can't the press just come out and say them?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[ganjadude]

actually in many places around the country you do need a permit to do so.....

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest question. I see this attitude quite often. No rights are violated because the government isn't involved and private entities can do what they want. Do you really believe this, or is this some kind of trolling?

Do you really not see how the digital infrastructure needed for any form of effective communication and participating in society, being controlled by a few large companies, many effectively a monopoly, all with their own agenda, is a problem?

What is wrong with requiring the same non-discriminatory behavior from these companies that we expect from other utilities?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Last Week Tonight to a piece on the horrible state of the appointed lawyers? It's funny how the left will talk about how awful it is that the poor can only get public defenders in one breath and then the next say that a poor guy they don't like can just deal with having a public defender. You seem to forget that most of the poor people who were getting bad representation on Last Week Tonight weren't exactly saints either, yet for them, it was deemed acceptable to bemoan the poor state of public defenders. Why is it not acceptable in this case?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

They know who he is, they can always cut him a check. No one is entitled to crowdfunding.

Ok... and what happens after the check is cut? Do you know any lawyers looking to line their home with checks?

The next step beyond this is for the mob to learn that the "Even accused racists have a right to a good lawyer" fund is being run out of and demand that the bank cease having any relationship with them.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

The words required "required" and "necessary" are synonyms. Calydor was answering the question why they were required. Aboroth pointed out they were not necessary.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[skids]

Yeah, we'll see about that when Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission reaches the Gorsuch's desk.

Of course it also depends on where GoFundMe et al falls vis-a-vis the definition of "public accommodations", but if some guy can deny gay people a wedding cake, there's no way anyone is going to force crowdfunding sites to do anything whatsoever. Delicious irony.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Solandri]

The question here is how much leeway businesses have in refusing service. The left has already established that they believe a business may not discriminate at all, and must treat everyone equally in terms of business transactions. That's why they believe a Christian owner of a cake shop must produce a cake for a gay wedding even if it personally offends the owner to produce decorations for a gay wedding.

Well, now we have a case which flips the left/right spectrum. If you are running a business offering a service to the public, can you deny that service to white supremacist customers because you personally disagree with white supremacy?

Now, I personally believe the cake shop owner has the right to refuse to make a cake decorated for a gay wedding (but not to refuse to sell a generic cake which the buyer may decorate as they wish). So I have no problem with GoFundMe, Godaddy, etc. denying these Nazis services since it requires "their" equipment to propagate white supremacist materials. But I'm curious though how those on the left justify denying business owners the right to refuse a customer in one case, but having no problem with it in this one.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Click the "parent" button until you get to the top comment, and read the chain of responses. Keep re-reading until you understand why.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, Nazis and WS aren't a protected class.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

So

Starting a statement with 'so' is a tell for cognitive dissonance.

what makes you decide to donate money to a crowdfunding site to raise money for anything

I fixed the first Q for you.

The answer is personal preference and awareness.

those that cannot afford a good lawyer is a white supremacist like James Fields Jr., and, not say the tens of thousands of minority accused who make up the lion's share of people who are forced due to a lack of money to pay for their own attorney?

How many of those in second group are denied by various crowd funding sites? Ok, it looks like we've got a false equivalency then.

All of sudden, being stuck with a private defender is a big problem when it's some white Nazi who can't afford a lawyer, but it never bothered you before?

Being stuck with a public defender is always a big problem. Being able to solicit funds to hire a good lawyer for a criminal trial is not something which should be limited based on ideological or racial grounds.

Captcha: sinister

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[MightyMartian]

I don't think that's what the "left" is saying at all. What is being said is "why does some poor white bigot deserve our sympathy and cash for a decent lawyer, and not all the poor minorities who are more likely to need a public defender on average than white people?"

I agree, there should be more money for public defenders, but not just for white Nazis being accused of serious crimes.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[JohnFen]

Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here?

I am. But what about the right of free association?

I can see being upset at the crowdfunding sites. I can see boycotting them as a result. But their actions are well within their Constitutional rights, and they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.

They are not, as many commenters here are claiming, stopping people from offering financial support. They are just refusing to allow their platforms to be the mechanism. There are myriad other mechanisms still available to everyone.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[StormReaver]

These sites can deny service to whomever they like.

While you're legally correct, that view is morally reprehensible. Once a business becomes large enough to wield more power than some governments, they need to be held to a higher standard. In a society where money equals justice, large crowd funding sites become one gatekeeper of said justice.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing this happened in the US and all suspects get a Miranda warning and GoFundMe isn't our last line of legal defense.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

And which supreme court case defined the right to a private companies crowdsource funding platform again?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up and bake the damn cake!

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[EndlessNameless]

Each of those sites can do what they like---and if they have rules prohibiting racial discrimination, violence, or hate crimes, then they are behaving in a reasonably consistent fashion.

Nothing is stopping neo-Nazi sites from starting their own funding campaigns. If you're worried about their freedom, remember this: They are perfectly free to collect and distribute funds on their own.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

What if your legal system wasn't so retarded that you can only get justice by begging on the internet? Same question, but about your health care system?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[DRJlaw]

A right to speak, A right to fair trial, even being treated as innocent until convicted should NOT be abridged.

Nobody is stopping his supporters from writing stuff on a cardboard box and standing at intersections. I don't see a problem here.

Way to miss the point. Are we committed to the US constitution with it's bill of rights or not here? Perhaps the ends (silencing repugnant speech) justifies the means (ignoring the bill of rights)?

The bill of rights prohibits the government from infringing upon a number of individual and states rights, rather than specifying an individual's rights over other individuals.

I'm not saying the "crowd sourced funding" companies don't have the right to refuse...

You totally are, because you keep intimating that those companies are destorying constitutional rights despite not being the government...

I'm just pointing out that we just might letting the camel's nose into the tent by just accepting the idea that the accused don't deserve to ask for help with their legal costs.

Nobody has proposed that idea. They've proposed that individuals and companies may engage in a "freedom of association" under which they may refuse to be associated with his requests. He may ask for help in public forums or in any private forum that is willing to be associated with him.

We need to error on the side of caution here and stay as far away from acting like a lynch mob rushing to judgment as we can.

Oh. You're thinking that the crowdfunding sites have prejudged him of being guilty of a crime rather than merely being a neo-Nazi asshole who, in his public words and deeds, has promoted hate and violence against minorities. Your mistake.

I've heard that there *might* be some undisclosed circumstances in play here as well and we need to whoa up and let law enforcement do their jobs, bring the appropriate charges and prove them in court, while letting the accused have the benefit of being presumed innocent until convicted.

See the previous two sentences.

One doesn't get tried in the court of public opinion and condemned by the mob in our system.

Yes, one does. It's called a reputation. It's called being known by the company that you keep. And it can have nothing to do with whether one has committed a crime or not.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

These can deny service to whomever they like. If people don't like it, they're welcome to create their own .

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

alleged murderer

He's not a murderer until found guilty in the court of law. The court of public opinion does not a legal verdict make.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anubis IV]

We all need to be guarding the other's rights no matter how repugnant the other's opinions (or actions) are to us.

Here's the thing: we certainly should fight for the rights of those with whom we disagree, but we must also never allow ourselves to be convinced that it's a violation of their rights if we exercise our right to not associate with them. By my count, exactly zero of his rights are being violated.

In fact, if we were to compel the various online services to serve those people, we'd be violating their right to associate (or not) with whomever they choose. As private individuals and companies, they have a right to not associate themselves with neo-Nazis, so while the defendant certainly has the rights you listed, and while we certainly should fight for those rights, that doesn't mean he's entitled to use private platforms developed by private companies. The fact that others of us are able to do so is a privilege, not a right; if he wants to enjoy those privileges, he must play by the rules they've set up, just like the rest of us.

He and those supporting him are not abiding by the rules of those services, so they're rightly being shut down. In no way is that a violation of his rights. It's simply those services exercising their rights.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Obfuscant]

I am. But what about the right of free association?

GoFundMe is a company. They gave up the right of "free association" when they formed a company that allows anyone to use their services for fundraising, at least according to the public accomodations law in Colorado and many other states. That's why there's now a case in front of SCOTUS about this issue.

But their actions are well within their Constitutional rights, and they are not infringing on anyone else's rights.

It is within the constitutional rights of the baker in the Colorado case to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, and it does not violate anyone's rights when he refuses to bake a cake for a same sex couple. (They have no constitutional right to a cake baked by any specific person.)

They are not, as many commenters here are claiming, stopping people from offering financial support.

The baker in Colorado was not stopping the couple from buying a cake from someone else.

Were you aware that you were making excellent arguments supporting the refusal by a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples? Just curious if that's deliberate.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

also explain to me why GoFundMe et al should be forced to facilitate the funding of a murderer? answer: why the fuck should they be?

Same reason, a bakery should be required to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
If people can be denied services because of the result of their standing in "the court of public opinion" than we do not in fact have a nation governed by laws. One business acting on this bias is not a problem. All businesses doing it is. To prevent the issue we need to deter this sort of thing before it becomes common practice.

Refusing to accept projects that are illegal, is reasonable. If this were seeking funding for say: a "leftist-squshing truck" denying it would be reasonable. But seeking funding for legal defense is not illegal, and the position of a business should be "Nazi money spends just as well as SWJ money" just like it should be "gay money spends juts as well as straight" in the cake example.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[VocationalZero]

Do you know any lawyers looking to line their home with checks?

What? Checks are a way to transfer money. Lawyers work for money. Not sure where your disconnect is.

The next step beyond this is for the mob to learn that the "Even accused racists have a right to a good lawyer" fund is being run out of and demand that the bank cease having any relationship with them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. No. Banks have proven time and time again that they do not give a flying **** about anything except money. And if you define a "good" lawyer as an above-average lawyer, I disagree with the assertion entirely.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Evil Kerek]

The liberals don't care. They are on the side of 'right' therefore anything goes for their 'enemies'. They regularly have violent protests, but nothing is done about it. They regularly shutdown, unplug and prevent anyone from speaking anything they don't agree with - and nothing is done about it.

It's ok. They are 'good' and conservatives are 'evil'.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Obfuscant]

In fact, if we were to compel the various online services to serve those people, we'd be violating their right to associate (or not) with whomever they choose.

This "right" does not exist in many states. You are calling for this right when the excluded person is an alleged murderer and neo-nazi. Would you be so quick to call for this right if he were excluded because he is black or gay or Mexican?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that is one of those gaps that people talk about when they say that law isn't keeping up with tech. GoFundMe isn't a brick-and-mortar, cake shop is. Now this isn't me taking a side in the debate, it is just me pointing out that there is currently a difference and how you feel about that difference should dictate what you should say to your Representatives of either the Federal government, State government, or both. However, as it stands, "public accommodations" is really loose with online things because not everyone has a computer/cell phone/etc and again that's a whole another debate as to if you feel online things are just as important as say brick-and-mortar places. Additionally, if you do apply that to online things, how far does one go? Does every website have to be ADA compliant with the blind? It's a sticky topic with no easy answer, always makes for good debate.

Re: Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah but corporations are now people, thanks to the conservatives, and some of them, quite a few as it happens, have turned out to be liberal SJW people. Sad!

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they can create their own crowdfunding site. You want me to tell you what will happen? Two things: The far left crazies will start pressuring Visa and Mastercard to not accept transactions from them, not that it takes much pressure given what went on during the Obama administration against perfectly legal gun dealers and other such law abiding businesses. Banks caved left, right, and center to not be associated with the demon of the day.

Of course, at that level now you're talking about de facto monopolies and oligopolies that really do need to be regulated to accept all legal transactions if we as a society wish to continue to have electronic money in private hands like that. I'm even sure it will happen one day, the day being when a corporation kicks out a left wing group for their opinions.

The second thing that will happen is that these alternative crowdfunding sites will of course accumulate a large percentage of "hate speech" supporters. Well, they'll
  get those who are called that by the media anyway, mostly for pointing out inconvenient truths and having unpopular opinions, since the actual number of groups and individuals who truly really preach hate and any kind of racial superiority is extremely small, and since only people who preach white superiority are called out for it that number is even smaller. So as that stuff concentrates for lack of a better place to go, the sites themselves will be called out in places like this, just as a site that I won't mention is called out right now a couple of front page headlines above this one for having the absolute gall to not kick out people who the left disagrees with.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are running a business offering a service to the public

But the thing is that GoFundMe is an online entity. You are hitting a point where a lot of folk always complain about the law not keeping up with tech. The public at large doesn't have access to a computer, so are we truly saying that they are offering a service to the public or are they offering a service online? I'm not saying right or wrong, but I am pointing out that there is a difference. That doesn't justify anything in my mind, but there is a technical difference and maybe that should be corrected, maybe it shouldn't be corrected. Either way, as it stands, there is indeed a difference here however meaningful or meaningless it might be to whoever you ask.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

But go fund me isn't stopping anyone. Last I checked the USPS still worked. I'm pretty sure Western Union is still around. I mean people sent funds to people long before the Internet existed.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Delicious irony maybe, but not entirely the same thing. There is the matter of scale here. It's really hard to draw this line but I'm going to try anyway. Small bakeries are hardly monopolies and do not enjoy the power to move markets by themselves. They are also often not "regular" corporations with a board of directors, are not publicly traded, and generally do not enjoy special privileges, preferential taxation, etc. that are given to such entities. I think it's going to be difficult for someone to make a case that the government force such an entity to do business with people they don't want to.

On the other hand, if it's a national retail chain I have a lot less of a problem forcing the term "public accommodation" on them. They get a lot from we the people and they owe us good behavior, legally enforced if necessary. The US has often been loathe to draw those distinctions. I think it would be perfectly fine for a charter pilot to refuse to fly someone they don't like under circumstances of ample supply of alternatives, but given our absolute lack of competition in airlines it would be absolutely wrong for them to do so.

I think it's going to, or at least it should, come down to what choices people have. With electronic money, people have less choices than you'd think, there literally being no public alternatives to the big bank owned credit card companies except crypto currency, which lacks enough market share and widespread use to be a viable alternative for most. Forcing them to be a public accommodation would seem to me to be a no brainer. As to the crowdfunding sites themselves--interesting question given that the barrier to entry for using one of the established ones is next to nothing while the barrier to starting your own site is very high for people who are not versed in such things, and thanks to banks and card processors not all that easy for people who are. You might as well argue that a person denied flying because the airlines don't like him has the right to spend a few months and thousands of dollars taking flying lessons and then even more renting a plane to get to his destination, or the even better one that the law equally prevents both rich and poor people from sleeping under bridges. Circumstances matter, and in this society, they're starting to matter more and more.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anubis IV]

This "right" does not exist in many states.

Yes, it does. The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it's impossible to enjoy the rights of the First Amendment without having it, so it too is a right that exists as a natural byproduct of the First Amendment. As an example, in Alabama v. NAACP they said that without the freedom to associate with whom we choose, we are incapable of exercising the right to free speech. Since we have the right to free speech, we must therefore also have the right to freely associate.

You are calling for this right when the excluded person is an alleged murderer and neo-nazi. Would you be so quick to call for this right if he were excluded because he is black or gay or Mexican?

You're seriously asking whether I consider discrimination against a protected class to be the same as discriminating against people on the basis of their espousing and practicing violence? If you can't see the obvious differences between the two and understand why one is perfectly acceptable while the other isn't, I have nothing more to say.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[skids]

That too, but it only amplifies my point. About the only thing the wedding cake guy has on his side is a claim of "religious freedom" which I doubt crowd-funding sites will try to assert... and if the SCOTUS hangs its hat on "religious freedom" being the discriminating factor, then, well, long live The Great Spaghetti Monster.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[JohnFen]

Were you aware that you were making excellent arguments supporting the refusal by a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples?

Of course I'm aware of that. It's pretty irrelevant to the case at hand, though. Also, you (and others who keep bringing this up) seem to be ignoring some rather important distinctions between the two things.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll probably fine the drive is disabled, clinically insane, or some how not responsible for his actions and therefore cannot be put to death. He'll stay in prison for a couple decades and the monster will get out.

Just wanna-be nazis that got hurt, so no big deal right? They deserve it for being ignorant stupid fucks and are beyond helping, so really this person was just doing society a favor.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Because being a dickbag that pilots a ton and a half of metal at a crowd of undefended people is being a member of a protected minority. You utter and complete fucking cretin,

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Your protected class idea is nonsensical.

Are gay Nazis protected?

What proportion of special protection do you propose we give someone who is 1/4 from another ethnicity?

Alternatively, enumerate the rights that we all have, and do not judge people by the color of their skin, and their choice of personal lifestyle insofar as it does not damage any other rights or interfere unnecessarily with the rights of others.

I guess that makes me, a classical liberal, some kind of alt-right nut in your eyes.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

> Starting a statement with 'so' is a tell for cognitive dissonance.

I presume this some kind of new method of avoiding having to argue on merit for compete fuckwits, the mad, or wilful liars.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

This is part of the "marketplace of ideas:" the tiny minority of asshats have a right to say horrible things, and the rest of us civilized people "market" our own ideas by NOT FUCKING SUBSIDIZING THEM!!

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[thegarbz]

We all need to be guarding the other's rights no matter how repugnant the other's opinions (or actions) are to us.

He has rights to a trial and a lawyer. That doesn't mean a private company needs to provide a platform to fund him something better.

If we don't slow down and realize this, we are going to have no real justice, no real democracy.

The old slippery slope argument. Except in this case it's not very slippery at all, and the slope isn't even very steep. You're not going to find a lot of support from non-nazis for someone who decided to drive his car into a protest and kill someone on purpose. If he gets off, it will be because of a technicality, not because he doesn't deserve to rot in hell.

The guy's rights aren't being violated here. He will get a trial. He will get a lawyer regardless of what his financial situation is. My question back to you is: Why should we elevate this guy above his mandated rights, and why is it suddenly a slippery slope not to?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[thegarbz]

I'm just pointing out that we just might letting the camel's nose into the tent by just accepting the idea that the accused don't deserve to ask for help with their legal costs.

Except by denying him funding through a private third party that doesn't want to associate with his actions we're not removing any of his basic rights which include the right to a fair trail and the right to legal aid in the process.

The question you're really asking is why should we not refuse to allow him to elevate his position. In doing so you're either advocating that the legal system is broken and only those with money will get a good outcome, or you're advocating support in the form of increased chances that someone guilty gets off on a technicality discovered by some crack legal team.

In any case regardless if whether he is guilty or innocent I think it should be people and corporation's rights to not want to have any part of it (except of course for the mandated legal aid who needs to excuse themselves if they are unable to represent their client objectively)

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Grim Beefer]

Good. Keep coming for them please.

He's still going to get a public defender, no matter what, but it doesn't mean ANYONE in the private sector has to take his case, or help facilitate the process. Lawyers are allowed to refuse cases, even if you can afford to pay. Similarly, GoFundMe and the like are PRIVATE fucking companies that can choose to not accept payment if they damn well please.

Fuck off with your slippery slope nonsense, as this is NOT a case of such, unless private entities don't actually have the right to "refuse service" if they so choose.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

That motherffffffff KILLED _3_ people for hate. Killing and injuring is not free speech. He was caught red-handed. He gets a public defender. If that's good enough for a poor person who is a defendant in a drug case with likely planted evidence, it's good enough for that alleged murderer.

I used alleged, if that makes you feel better.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not THIS. It's not like he is being persecuted for free speech. He is being persecuted for killing 3 people and injuring others in front of a multitude of witnesses. He is not deserving of any special treatment or support. Are you as supportive of the people who are being prosecuted for rioting in D.C. during the inauguration? I bet not.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

3? What alternative facts site do you get your propaganda from?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has a wedding cake been a requirement for marriage? These bakeries can deny service to whomever they like. If people don't like it, they're welcome to bake their own wedding cake, which is a hell of a lot easier than starting their own crowdfunding site.

Always replace the subject in your argument to see if you pass the hypocrisy test.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Darinbob]

They can raise money if they like. They can't however force others to go along with them, and they can't force independent web sites of supporting their cause. I hear there are several organizations sympathetic to his "plight".

As for rights, who in their right mind thinks this guy is innocent? It's caught on film, it was clearly not a case of mistakenly getting a foot caught in the accelerator. Want a lawyer - get a public defender! If a public defender is not good enough, then perhaps they'll consider how unfair it is for poor black people to be stuck with incompetent public defenders.

But never mind, this guy will get his day in court and be treated more fairly than is deserved because that's how we do things in the US.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Darinbob]

Apparently nobody could get lawyers in the days before crowdfunding sites.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Darinbob]

They also have terms of service that customers have to agree to. They can go and use the crowdfunding site for anything they want that does not violate the terms of service. The people are not being discriminated against, it is the stuff they are raising money for that is.

Yes, the baker has the right to refuse service to anyone in my view, no matter how inane their rationale. You can be 100% against gay marriage but still be incredibly stupid to think that your holy scripture forbids selling a wedding cake to gays, and hypocritical if you think it's ok to have been selling all sorts of baked goods with a smile to the same gay couple earlier. I've read their holy book, cover to cover, studied it, discussed it, memorized many verses from it, and know what it says. And it does not support their opinion, so if they want to make a political point then they're lying by saying that they're merely following what that book says.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

leftist news were all over it. I expect same reaction here? Right...

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what's "morally reprehensible" is a) ploughing your car into a bunch of people, and b) trying to argue that we all have to allow Nazi's (call them what they are) to spout their hate freely.

They have a right to free speech, which means they got their permit from the government to assemble for their protest against the statue coming down.

The rest of us (and that includes private companies) equally have a right to call them on their hate filled bullshit and refuse to be involved with them.

Being a self absorbed racist moron is not a protected class.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying the "crowd sourced funding" companies don't have the right to refuse, I'm just pointing out that we just might letting the camel's nose into the tent by just accepting the idea that the accused don't deserve to ask for help with their legal costs.

And there is a reason why you need to point that out - you are secretly a piece of shit.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Cederic]

Calydor, since you ask.

Michiganbob: "Since when has crowdfunding been a requirement ..."
Calydor: "Ever since ..."

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[skids]

You are an idiot. Of course he isn't a protected minority you utter git. Stop trying to derail a discussion on legal precedent with flamebait.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[atrex]

Eh, regardless of the lack of actual trial verdict being passed out in the instance of James Fields, the raw amount of video evidence screams his guilt to the sky. The car didn't malfunction. There wasn't someone else driving the car. An entire crowd of people didn't just leap in front of his vehicle. He backed up to get room and then gunned it directly at the crowd with the cameras watching. It's no different than if there was clear video evidence of him pulling out and firing a shotgun.

As for Crowdfunding websites - yeah, it's their right to refuse service to anyone that violates their Terms of Service, upon which they make that judgment. It is their privately owned platform. Just like it is Twitter's right to ban any account they view as violating their ToS, or Blizzard's or any other internet company's. If people really want to support this guy for some reason, there is nothing preventing them from digging up his address on 4chan or reddit or wherever else these people hide and mailing him a check. But no corporation is obligated to provide a service to make that easier for them.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

If the funding were for an LGBT or women's rights issue, I bet they would be forced by a court to allow it. While I am not a big fan of forcing a private company to do anything, I think from a legal perspective that the laws should be applied consistently.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Obfuscant]

Of course I'm aware of that. It's pretty irrelevant to the case at hand, though.

Not when the arguments are falling exactly in line with that case.

Also, you (and others who keep bringing this up) seem to be ignoring some rather important distinctions between the two things.

You want to ignore the similarities ("pretty irrelevant"), I'm talking only about the similarities. Do I understand that the cases are not identical? Of course. One deals with the "right" of someone to buy a cake from a specific baker; the other deals with fundraising to support the right of a defendant to a fair trial. Note carefully where I used scare quotes and where I did not.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[bobbied]

Regardless of the evidence you've seen, we do not live in a state where the mob meters out justice. He has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, not by the crowd's reaction to video being played on CNN, FOX and MSNBC.

All I'm saying is that he's entitled to his rights as repugnant as his actions may or may not be. ALL of us need to commit to making sure these rights are protected, regardless of how we feel about what he did. I fear that the mob mentality is ruling the day, where we are willing to forego due process in seemingly egregious cases, which reduces us to the same moral standing of a lynch mob metering out justice.

I'm proposing that we all need to be careful here.... We all need to demmand and only be satisfied if due process is followed. Why? Because it is the rule of law that protects ALL of us, where mob justice puts us all in danger.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Obfuscant]

They also have terms of service that customers have to agree to.

So does the Colorado baker. What's your point?

Yes, the baker has the right to refuse service to anyone in my view, no matter how inane their rationale.

Not according to the law in Colorado, or in many other states.

You can be 100% against gay marriage but still be incredibly stupid to think that your holy scripture forbids selling a wedding cake to gays,

You can be incredibly stupid to think that the holy scripture is that specific, and then be incredibly insulting to put the issue in those terms.

and hypocritical if you think it's ok to have been selling all sorts of baked goods with a smile to the same gay couple earlier.

Oh, now you're just making things up. Do you have a citation that shows that this specific baker felt it was appropriate to sell wedding cakes to gay couple before same-sex marriage was legalized? You're accusing him of being a hypocrite for being ok with it one time but not another. You have no facts to back that up.

And it does not support their opinion,

Actually, it does. You just didn't bother to connect all the dots, so to speak. You're looking for a specific "it is a sin to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple", and that isn't there. You need to think about what it means to directly support a sinful activity. There is a pretty specific prohibition on stealing, so is it ok to just drive the getaway car? There is no "thou shall not drive the getaway car" commandment, it must be ok, right? How about if you provide the meeting place for the group that is planning and then hiding out, knowing that is what they are doing?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Obfuscant]

Yes, it does.

No, it does not. Colorado law covering accommodations by businesses do not allow discrimination on the bases of many things. "Discrimination" is what we would call "freedom of association", or rather, freedom to not associate. People may have that right, but businesses do not.

The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it's impossible to enjoy the rights of the First Amendment without having it,

I thought the common meme was that businesses don't have first amendment rights? I mean, that's what CU was all about, and CU is roundly and routinely denounced in this forum. In any case, it is quite possible for a businessman to exercise his first amendment rights while his business is not permitted to discriminate. Did you forget, we're talking about businesses here.

As an example, in Alabama v. NAACP they said that without the freedom to associate with whom we choose,

Great misapplication of a simple concept. That case ruled that the NAACP has the right to conduct business in Alabama, not that they can discriminate against anyone when they do conduct their business there.

The "freedom of association" also requires a freedom NOT to associate, and that is the issue at hand. (Think about it a minute. If you are not free to NOT associate with someone, then just what does "freedom of association" really mean? Nothing. You can't not associate, therefore, you don't get to choose who you associate with.) The Colorado baker, under Colorado law, is NOT free to "not associate" with a gay couple seeking a wedding cake. Therefore, the "freedom of association" is not available to him -- he cannot choose who he wishes to associate with and who he does not. The NAACP case had nothing to do with them not associating with people in Alabama, so it is not on point.

You're seriously asking whether I consider discrimination against a protected class to be the same as discriminating against people on the basis of their espousing and practicing violence?

The only difference between a "protected class" and a non-protected class is an opinion, which changes over time. There is no inherent "protected class". In this case, the people who are trying to do the fundraising are not espousing or practicing violence, they are trying to raise money so that a criminal defendant can afford a good legal defense.

Further, your reference to "protected class" means that you are quite aware of the fact that businesses are NOT free to refuse to associate with certain classes of people -- the very thing you started your response contradicting me on. The freedom of association for businesses is not a right in many states, and at the "protected class" level it does not exist at the federal level, either.

If you can't see the obvious differences between the two and understand why one is perfectly acceptable while the other isn't,

If you think the idea of "protected class" is immutable, cast in stone, defined by natural law, and that anything outside those currently defined classes is fair game for discrimination, then there really isn't anything more to say.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[GonzoPhysicist]

Not this crap again. Don't you realize the difference between discriminating against someone for what have done vs. who they are?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[david_thornley]

Nobody is talking about denying him any rights. Nobody is talking about removing his right to a fair trial.

I assume that you're perfectly fine with him possibly having to rely on a public defender, just like other people who can't afford better. What's fair for a scared black kid is fair for a Nazi murderer, as you have pointed out.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a noble sentiment that is applied in the courts, but it really doesn't work that way anywhere else. If you're apparently guilty of a crime, you're likely to be arrested and imprisoned, which is a lot less likely than if there's no evidence linking you to a crime. Employers ask for arrest records if they can get them, despite the fact that someone who has been arrested five times for shoplifting and never convicted or plead guilty is legally innocent.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[david_thornley]

Oh, it's a problem. It's a problem without a simple solution.

We do in some cases mandate non-discriminatory behavior. However, I don't know of any state where "murderous Nazi scum" is a protected class. We allow public businesses to refuse service to individuals on grounds other than being members of protected classes. It's a clumsy solution, but it works reasonably well. Requiring businesses to deal with everyone is simply not going to work.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[david_thornley]

Because there are certain classes of people who are often discriminated against to the point that it becomes a real problem for them. If you think "Nazi scum" should be a protected class, feel free to lobby your legislators. I, personally, don't think it should be. I also am not really happy at the comparison of a murderous Nazi to an innocent lesbian couple, and would like to point out that crowdfunding sites are not engaging in an internet harassment campaign against the asshole, as the bakers did towards the couple.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[david_thornley]

Let me get this straight. Are you saying nobody should have to resort to a public defender ever, or do you just want Nazis to get preferred treatment? Nobody's saying that having to use a public defender is good, just that arguing that it's wrong for a Nazi to have to rely on one while ignoring all sorts of other people who have to is hypocritical.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[david_thornley]

What you don't seem to realize is that nobody here is advocating denying the guy any rights. He has a right to a fair trial, and if he can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed to represent him. He will have the right to call witnesses and the whole nine yards.

This is all that a lot of people get. If there's some right to not have to have a public defender, then lots and lots of poor people are having their rights denied, which should bother you more than just one person.

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[david_thornley]

OK, here's the next question.

What specifically do you want done about all the poor people who get caught up in the justice system and can't pay a lawyer who earns more per hour than the average citizen earns in a week? If this is denying him any right, then that right is routinely denied to a very large number of people, and you should be concerned about that. Are you going to support people who want to provide better lawyers to indigent defendants in general?

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

one of the accounts I've come across said that he only ran his car in the protesters after they where bombarding his car with bricks

I have no idea if there's any truth to that

but that would mean that his action could self-defense (though in my opinion it would still be a disproportionate response and therefore liable)

judging him a murderer before a trial has concluded is precisely the problem (most of us have at best third-hand knowledge of the events, none of us are in a position to be sure of the events, that very much includes the main stream media)

Re:Problematic as a precedent

[thejynxed]

To add further: Most states I know have laws on the books prohibiting convicted felons from associating with one another at any time after their release. These laws are conveniently ignored when it comes to business employment issues, but are one of the tools LEOs and prosecutors use regularly to put these men and women back behind bars in a heartbeat.

nobrainer

[phantomfive]

It's an easy call to make for a corporation:

On the one hand, you get free publicity, and most people give you credit for being moral.
On the other hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who support racist violence.

In terms of raw numbers, the choice is easy. On the other hand, you'd like these funding things to be apolitical, not appointing themselves judges. It would be kind of interesting to see how many people actually would be willing to donate to his defense fund. Does that fool actually have any chance at all in court?

Re:nobrainer

[StormReaver]

On the other hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who support racist violence.

And on the third hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who believe that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial.

Re:nobrainer

[phantomfive]

And on the third hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who believe that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial.

For some reason this group seems very small recently.

Re:nobrainer

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that fool actually have any chance at all in court?

Even accused murders who are claimed to be nazis/racisits/etc have the right to competent legal representation. The more money you have, the more competent you can hire.

It is quite disturbing to see these companies putting their thumb on the scales of justice, regardless of what yours or my personal feelings are accused are.

Re:nobrainer

[Anonymous Coward]

> Does that fool actually have any chance at all in court?
He's already escaped terrorism charges...

Re:nobrainer

[bluefoxlucid]

It's because nobody noticed our original legal framework was set up to make sure you can get away with your crimes.

If you go out raping and murdering, people are going to notice. It's going to leave evidence, it's going to draw attention, it's going to put you at risk. People care, people start trying to identify who is doing all this raping and murdering, and your strange movements and behaviors start creating patterns which we can see (and which upset people).

Let me remind you the Unabomber was caught because his manifesto included the phrase "right-wing logicians" a lot. More-subtle things have given people away.

If you're selling heroin and meth, you're damaging people around you. In a competitive black market, you're causing disruption. Trouble, noise, and attention tends to flow your way. If you're smoking pot in your basement on the weekends... nobody cares. People might care in general, and think that those sort should be rounded up and locked away from civilized society; but you're not causing a problem, you're not drawing attention, and nobody's looking your way.

It's actually more-damaging for society if the police roll in and arrest you, because now we have to deal with you. You cost us money, you tie up our justice system, and generally things are now complicated. That doesn't even begin to touch on people who are innocent of a crime framed by circumstantial evidence.

We're often told people are guilty of a myriad of crimes, and we just need to build a case. Our constitution tried to build a framework to make that case really hard to build unless you did something actually important.

Re:nobrainer

[jellomizer]

How would crowdfunding fix this.

Re:nobrainer

[phantomfive]

I think the structure of your comment is "main point / supporting points," with the main point being your first sentence. I'm not entirely sure how the other paragraphs in your comment relate to that, though. Could you clarify please?

Re:nobrainer

[Anonymous Coward]

> On the other hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who support racist violence.

The thing with all these recent censorship/no-platform/outcasting moves is, Nazis are a smokescreen.

They don't stop there and have been doing it on a much broader scale already. They've been doing it to conservatives and people critical of the radical left for a while now. A lot more people are affected than some fringe extremists and thanks to the press they're thrown in with all the evil buzzwords of the month, and any criticism automatically brands you as "the bad guys".

Re:nobrainer

[thegarbz]

And on the third hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who believe that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial.

And how is someone not being able to raise money stopping that? Is America a society that deeply in decay that the fairness (in your favour of course) is directly proportional your bank balance?

What was in the Miranda warning again?:
"If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you"

Maybe you should fix your legal system if somehow this is going to result in the person not getting a fair trail.

Re:nobrainer

[Grim Beefer]

Horseshit. Horseshit. Horseshit.

Private entities, be they lawyers in practice, finance companies, etc. have NO obligation, whatsoever, to cooperate with you if they don't want to. This is what's loosely referred to as "economic freedom". Even if you can pay me, I don't HAVE to take your case. You know, that whole "refuse the right to render service" shit you see everywhere? Protections of such, under the law, are EXACTLY for bullshit like this. The only mitigating factor here are cases of discrimination, which this CLEARLY is not, as the person is being refused service for their actions, not their inherent qualities.

Nothing about this impedes this person's right to a fair trial, as no matter what, they're still going to get a legal defense. So take you blatantly false upvoted bullshit somewhere else.

Re:nobrainer

[Anonymous Coward]

And on the third hand,

You mean The Gripping Hand!

Re:nobrainer

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they deserve a fair trial. That's why they can get a public defender. What? Public defenders are overworked and underpaid resulting in poorer defense? Hm. Maybe there is something wrong when you are offended when a white man has to use the public defender.

Re:nobrainer

[Darinbob]

They are refusing to allow crowdfunding for the purposes of promoting hate speech or abuse, which sounds like a very non-political stance to take.

Re:nobrainer

[Darinbob]

Oh no, I think many people want him to get a fair trial, so that the courts can repudiate whatever repugnant defense he comes up with. He can get such a fair trial without needing a crowdfunding site to do so. He's already going to be getting much more money in donations than the vast majority of people who appear before the courts.

Re:nobrainer

[Anonymous Coward]

He'll get his trial regardless.

Re:nobrainer

[bluefoxlucid]

If what you're doing isn't causing a problem for anyone, it should be harder to arrest you for it. You generate more evidence (and more attention searching for evidence) when you're causing actual trouble.

Re:nobrainer

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who support racist violence.

FEW ? From where I'm standing, it's starting to look like the lead up to a full blown fucking race war in this country. On both goddamn sides.

Related question, where can I and the rest of the populace that doesn't give a fuck about identity politics go to ride this one out?

Re:nobrainer

[atrex]

Who said he isn't entitled to a fair trial? Heck, they are probably going to end up going through thousands of potential jurors to find any without preconceived outcomes in their heads, just like they had to for the Martin Shkreli trial. They'll have to fly them in from the igloos in Alaska.

If he cannot afford an attorney then the court will appoint one for him. He will get his trial and it will be as fair as the system can manage. If you have an issue with court appointed public defendants, well, maybe more money aught to be spent hiring enough of them so that they can afford to spend more than 2 hours per client and give every citizen the just representation they are entitled to.

Interesting fact though, Virginia is a Capital punishment state if the murder or attempted murder is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" against more than one person or as a part of an act of terrorism. The burden will be on law enforcement and the prosecution to gather evidence enough to convince an impartial jury of whether or not his actions were premeditated though.

Re:nobrainer

[Anonymous Coward]

In a lot of places, the lawyer who will be appointed for you, if provided by a public defender's office, can unfortunately often be expected to be a wonderful demonstration of just how hard it is to lose your license to practice law once you've passed the bar.

In a case like this, where there's a media circus and it's being tried in the court of public opinion, you're highly unlikely to actually get somebody up to the task unless you're very lucky--and not just in one of the places where all locally-practicing criminal defense lawyers are expected to take a turn playing public defender, but having one of the better lawyers who takes it seriously be the one up to defend you.

And even then, moving a trial is expensive. The funding available for your defense may simply not be sufficient for your side.

The problem is systemic, but it isn't purely the legal system.

Free speech vs fair trial

[Anonymous Coward]

There is I think an interesting dichotomy here...

On the one hand, they wish to prohibit 'hate speech' on their platform, so understandingly, like GoDaddy or Google, prohibit fund raising/hosting related to the dissemination of 'hate speech'.

On the other hand, by refusing to allow fund raising for adequate legal representation, they end up putting their finger on the scales of justice by limiting for which causes/persons can raise on the platform.

Re:Free speech vs fair trial

[rwiggers]

I don't see.

I really see some restriction of free speech on the first case. Rightful or a precedent opening for further step reductions should be debated.

Now, fund raising isn't freedom of speech and isn't a necessity for adequate legal representation. These platforms aren't also near monopolies that control the monetary flow around the world.

Basically, just well done bashing...

Re:Free speech vs fair trial

[Tenebrousedge]

That line about the US having the best justice system money can buy is meant to be sarcasm. Isn't "putting their finger on the scales of justice" what you do when you introduce money to this situation, not when you remove it?

Re:Free speech vs fair trial

[jellomizer]

So where is the evidence that a guy who has been recorded driving into a bunch of people, is somehow not getting adequate legal representation.
If that is the case, where is the crowdfunding source for all the public defenders? Not for this one high profile case.

Re:Free speech vs fair trial

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, by refusing to allow fund raising for adequate legal representation, they end up putting their finger on the scales of justice by limiting for which causes/persons can raise on the platform.

If the government isn't providing adequate legal representation for defendents (and it isn't) then that is a much larger threat to our system of justice.

Re:Free speech vs fair trial

[WillAffleckUW]

Your right to free speech exists.

Speech has consequences.

Jail is one of them.

Re:Free speech vs fair trial

[penandpaper]

If that is the case, where is the crowdfunding source for all the public defenders? Not for this one high profile case.

There is an irony to your statement that I don't think you intended or are aware. The public defenders office very expensive.

https://news.vice.com/article/...

Shooting Dallas cops too

[Anonymous Coward]

Also throwing blocks off overpasses into moving traffic in Minneapolis. Let's not forget Baltimore, either.

Cryptocurrencies to the rescue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Use cryptocurrencies to fund it instead. What's good enough for Wikileaks is good enough for him.

Is there a doubt he ran into the crowd with a car?

[Anonymous Coward]

When that day comes lets have this debate. This is a terrorist.
People are trying to contribute money to a racist terrorist!

I'm all for the principal of free speech. Having a demonstration is also fine, but when you drive a car into a crowd you lose some rights.

Hatreon

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are you all so far in the bubble you are unaware of the existence of such a thing?

You're just provoking the creation of such sites to replace all the Leftist censoring ones.

So what about funding a terrorist?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a Muslim guy who drove into a crowd in the street would that be OK?

If there was a doubt about his guilt this could have been used as an appeal to these companies. He's a terrorist who murdered an innocent person and injured many because of his "religion". These sites should not promote or condone terrorism in any form.

Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[CQDX]

The ACLU defended the Unite the Right group in Charlottesville when the city revoked their permit to demonstrate. So is the ACLU a supporter of hate speech and thus needs to be purged?

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you nazis really are too stupid to be in actual society, aren't you?

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[oh_my_080980980]

Apparently you are when you are unable to address his comment. You might want to look up the First Amendment sometime.

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[DaMattster]

As a Jewish man I loathe hate groups but I realize that freedom does not only apply when it's convenient. Freedom must apply whether it is offensive or not - as long as the speech is not "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" so to speak. If the speech isn't *overtly* advocating violence or killing, then it must be allowed to be made. Rather than counter-protesting, it would be better if everyone simply ignored the hate groups. Hate groups exists because we give them an audience. If they don't have an audience, their efforts are ones in futility and they just go away. Most of these members are angry attention seekers - deny them their goal through passive means and they'll fight amongst themselves in frustration.

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if the ACLU drove a car into a crowd of people killing one and is charged with 2nd degree murder then yes, they shouldn't be part of society.

Buuuuuttttt they didn't. Might be best to go fix your false equivalency machine before posting again.

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[DogDude]

Jesus Christ, are you really that stupid?

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[Baron_Yam]

> Hate groups exists because we give them an audience.

Hate groups exist because people like simple cause-and-effect relationships, and our primate brains are also wired for 'us vs. them'. In other words, we loves us some scapegoats. Didn't you guys coin that term a few thousand years ago? :)

Anyway, when someone's frustrated for whatever reason (and this is true rich or poor, weak or powerful), they almost always look for someone other than themselves to blame. If there's a 'them' around, sometimes they pick that person or group. And then, because we're also social creatures that like to form groups... they find other similarly frustrated people and share their scapegoat idea. If enough of them find each other, it becomes self-perpetuating and they also have the numbers to isolate and indoctrinate their children.

Boom: A racist sub-culture is born.

It's NOT as simple as 'ignore them and they fade away'. In fact, that's probably the worst thing you can do. It makes them feel even more slighted by their chosen scapegoat, and it allows them to multiply unchecked.

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[Anonymous Coward]

no dip shit.. you are.

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[thegarbz]

Yep because Unite the Right group getting a permit pulled when it was a peaceful protest is totally the same thing as a fundraise for a nazi douchebag that killed and maimed innocent people.

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[Grim Beefer]

Nice try. They weren't defending what the group had to say, they were defending their RIGHT to say it. Big difference.

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[Cederic]

maimed innocent people

Who was maimed that wasn't attending an illegal demonstration and/or wielding a weapon with intent to attack peaceful legal demonstrators?

Re:Are they going to ban the ACLU too?

[david_thornley]

Were they all wielding weapons?

Anyway, private mayhem is not a legal solution for attending an illegal demonstration.

Simple

[Ol Olsoc]

Donald Trump has already said he would pay for these people's legal fees, so the President can pick up th ebill for this guy.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to provide a link to that, or is it another lame attempt at lame "progressive" humor?

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that he never said that. Nice try though.

Re:Simple

[Ol Olsoc]

Care to provide a link to that, or is it another lame attempt at lame "progressive" humor?

Fuck progressives. I'm a Goldwater Republican, not the present day bought and paid for corporatists, turrning into white supremacist Republicans.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tru...

Gotta admire a man who will stand up for assault and battery.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure sound like a progressive, twisting facts "to make a point".

Re:Simple

[Ol Olsoc]

Except that he never said that. Nice try though.

He has said he would pick up th ebill for supporters who assault protesters. https://www.yahoo.com/news/tru...

Deal with it.

Re:Simple

[Obfuscant]

Gotta admire a man who will stand up for assault and battery.

So you equate punching someone who is there deliberately to provoke an incident at a political rally (documented in a hit piece on the candidate the rally was for) with Nazis who drive a car into a crowd? Wow. That's what you say when you claim that Trump has said he'd pay for the defense of this Nazi ("these people"), when the truth is that "these people" refers to a very different group.

Re:Simple

[Obfuscant]

He has said he would pick up th ebill for supporters who assault protesters.

No. He said he had instructed his staff to "look into it" for one specific case of a supporter who was being confronted by a disruptive protester. He made no blanket statement such as you claim, and your use of the statement he did make as proof he wants to pay for the defense of the nazi who drove into the crowd in Charlottseville is just nonsense.

Re:Simple

[Ol Olsoc]

Gotta admire a man who will stand up for assault and battery.

So you equate punching someone who is there deliberately to provoke an incident at a political rally (documented in a hit piece on the candidate the rally was for) with Nazis who drive a car into a crowd? Wow. That's what you say when you claim that Trump has said he'd pay for the defense of this Nazi ("these people"), when the truth is that "these people" refers to a very different group.

Oh, good grief.

My point was that Trump has supported violence before. He said what he said - that he would pay th elegal bills of his supporters who committed violence agains those he opposed.

But yes, you are correct, he did not specifically say that he was going to pay the legal bills of James Alex Fields Jr., the guy who drove his car into a crowd of protesters. You'll also note that I did not specifically say that Trump would pay for the legal fees of James Alex Fields Jr.

I said he can. Since y'all are parsing lame jokes, I figured that I would make that part very clear. As for Trump's saying he would pay people who engaged in violence, I guess you could say "FAKE NEWS!"

But are you denying that? All of those statements he made are out there for teh finding, either in print or in video. Or is your love of dear leader so strong that nothing can shake your fealty?

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Progressive Michael Moore, however, did exactly what Olsoc accuses Trump of here.

More projection.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

And the check is in the mail.

Re:Simple

[Obfuscant]

My point was that Trump has supported violence before.

A very different situation, a very different incident, and you're trying to use a statement about that one specific incident as a generic statement applying to this one.

You'll also note that I did not specifically say that Trump would pay for the legal fees of James Alex Fields Jr. M

Oh good grief. James Alex Fields Jr is one of "these people" you said that Trump promised legal aid to.

As for Trump's saying he would pay people who engaged in violence, I guess you could say "FAKE NEWS!"

Since he did not say that, yes, that's fake. A lie.

But are you denying that?

You've rambled so much here that I cannot tell what the antecedent to "that" is, especially when you use it in the topic sentence of the paragraph.

All of those statements he made are out there for teh finding, either in print or in video.

Then you should have no problem providing a citation where Trump actually said he'd pay the legal bills for "these people" when "these people" includes someone who drives his car into a group of protesters. So far, you've found one citation where he said that he'd have his staff look into paying to defend someone who threw a punch at a paid rabble-rouser who was confronting him, which is not anywhere close to what you are claiming.

Or is your love of dear leader

Ad hominem is a very useless technique. Or you are just confused by thinking that someone who objects to your false claims is a "lover" of the other side. You weaken your side of the argument when you make things up, and maybe I'm trying to help you improve your argument to support YOUR side.

No, not really. But you don't know. It's just another way you use insult to try to win an argument.

Shut it down now!

[GoyKnows]

Da goyim know! Shut it down!

Simple Economics

[KalvinB]

A dollar that goes to ensuring he gets a free trial is a dollar that doesn't fund acts of racism in public.

I sued a telemarketer once. I did everything I could to load up their legal bill. Since the lawyer was in Phoenix and the company was in Florida, I'd send a response to the one who didn't send me the petition. If Florida sent me something, I'd mail the response to Phoenix.

I won $300 by the end of it because they gave up. Talking to their lawyer I said "I know they paid you a lot of money. That's all that matters." Of course he thought it was funny. He got paid. It didn't matter who got the money as long as it was removed from the company.

Removing money from racists to pay a lawyer is a much better use of the money of racists than anything else they'd come up with like idiot signs or idiot flags. Or bus fares to their rallies.

Re:Simple Economics

[Cederic]

It's not a zero sum game though. People may help fund the defense of someone they fear will be otherwise ill treated by justice even though they'd refuse outright to support the political causes he espouses.

Re:Simple Economics

[david_thornley]

Once more, he will get all the justice of a fair trial in this country, no matter whether he has money or not. If you think that's insufficient, you're free to lobby for better representation by public defenders. Personally, if we're doing this on a piecemeal basis, I'd rather start with people who are more likely to be found not guilty.

Where is the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the evidence that he is a "nazi" other then being guilty of the crime of being white in America?

Re:Where is the evidence?

[MightyMartian]

He was seen marching with a white supremacist group (Vanguard America) and was seen wearing one of their shields early in the protest. Couple that with statements by others who knew him that he espoused white supremacist views, I don't think you need to be Sherlock Holmes to draw the line, unless you're intentionally trying to make a group like Vanguard look less loathsome than they are by making the absurd claim that he had nothing to do with them.

Re:Where is the evidence?

[halivar]

You need to remember the biblical admonition against throwing pearls before swine. GP knows exactly WTF this guy did, and is being a parrot. Your effort is wasted on him.

I'm sorry.

Re:Where is the evidence?

[sqorbit]

He's being charged with the crime of driving a car into a group of people. Nazi or not that's still a crime. If he's guilty of killing someone, it doesn't matter much what his beliefs are.

Re:Where is the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it had been a muslim who'd driven his car into a group of people, you'd immediatly screamed "ISIS terrorist scum !" and not asking any evidence that he was actually part of ISIS. And don't try to deny it. Anyone who's intellectually honest wouldn't believe you.

Re:Where is the evidence?

[DRJlaw]

Where is the evidence that he is a "nazi" other then being guilty of the crime of being white in America?

Here. Or do statements by former classmates and teachers not satisfy you?

Re:Where is the evidence?

[DogDude]

Fuck you, little Nazi troll.

Re:Where is the evidence?

[Darinbob]

I did notice that the shield had pictures of fasces on them. Ie, the symbol of the original Italian fascists. But here on Slashdot we have all sorts of people spouting off that fascists are really leftists. Other people were using Nazi swastikas, and we've been told on Sladhdot that Nazis were leftists. So does this make the "Unite the Right" people leftists?

Re:Where is the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes him a white supremacist ... but the GP asked what makes him, specifically, a Nazi.

Re:Where is the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was actually seen wearing Antifa shirt and marching with Antifa crowd. He was heard chanting "F. nazis!". Many people said they personally witnessed him beating up nazis for years. When you consider those facts, it is pretty obvious he was set up by the nazis

The guy doesn't need legal help

[Spy Handler]

he needs mental help. Supposedly he was diagnosed as a schizophrenic in childhood and been on psychiatric drugs ever since.

How about if they change "Let's raise money for James's legal defense" into "Let's raise money so this loony can be locked up in a proper mental asylum and given treatment", maybe it won't be so objectionable then.

Re:The guy doesn't need legal help

[Solandri]

Yeah. My prediction is he's going to get off the murder charges for reason of insanity. He'll still be locked up (in a mental hospital), but I suspect those hoping this will set a precedent against acts of violence against protesters are going to be disappointed by the outcome.

Re:The guy doesn't need legal help

[PopeRatzo]

he needs mental help. Supposedly he was diagnosed as a schizophrenic in childhood and been on psychiatric drugs ever since.

Yeah, I heard Alex Jones was pushing that new excuse. It's known as the "He's white, so he must be a lone wolf/mentally ill defense".

The day before, he was saying that all the alt-right protesters in Charlottesville were Jewish actors paid by George Soros.

Re:The guy doesn't need legal help

[Train0987]

There's also a good chance that he'll claim that the initial impact was an accident and once everyone starting swinging bats at his car car he fled in defense. He might get off because of the Antifa's actions.

Re:The guy doesn't need legal help

[david_thornley]

Insanity in the legal sense isn't the same as psychotic, so we'll have to see what the court says about that.

However, I'd bet there are lots of schizophrenics in prison cells, and I doubt many people complaining about the Nazi murderer are providing money to help them get the therapy they need.

Black-on-black gun violence is much more likely.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality that you, and leftists in general, keep ignoring is that if a black person gets shot while in the United States, there's actually a much greater chance that it's another black person who pulled the trigger than it is that it was a police officer (of any race).

Black-on-black gun violence is a huge problem across the US, in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta, Detroit, and L.A., among others.

What's really sad about this problem is that it's leftists who refuse to discuss it, and that's why it is continually perpetuated. As long as it's deemed "unacceptable" to discuss this very real and very deadly problem, and as long as it's deemed "unacceptable" to be perfectly open about who is involved and who isn't involved, then it will continue to happen. But perhaps that's exactly what leftists want, as it generates strife, which gives them more victims to exploit for political means.

Whoever the AC is, they're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

"making it harder for far-right groups to organize online."

I guess that their refusal to let ISIS GoFundMe (et al) cash raises is also making it harder for the religious to organize online too, hmm?

Re:Is there a doubt he ran into the crowd with a c

[oh_my_080980980]

Actually no you don't, ass-hole. We have something in America called due process. And no this was not terrorism. This was a crime pure a simple and will be prosecuted in the courts. But denying someone access to legal representation or the funds to hire legal representation, is un American.

Re:Black-on-black gun violence is much more likely

[MightyMartian]

What exactly does that have to do with African-Americans being more likely to be shot by police than white Americans?

Nazis are bad investment risks

[WillAffleckUW]

Always.

Re:Nazis are bad investment risks

[MightyMartian]

Except he wasn't....

http://www.snopes.com/george-s...

Re:Nazis are bad investment risks

[Anonymous Coward]

Ill just leave this here....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXqty2rkUDY

Re:Nazis are bad investment risks

[thejynxed]

Tell that to IBM and Hugo Boss (among many others), who made fortunes on the originals.

Re: Black-on-black gun violence is much more likel

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not being X or Y but being predetermined to have a live of shit because you were born in the wrong place unless you work ten time more than the rich snowflake living a few blocks away.

Re:In the US, legal representation is a RIGHT

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaaand you proved his point. You're being a dickhead because you don't agree with his message.

You're like the Antifa guys who claim to hate Fascists, but act exactly like the Fascists of old who shout down and commit violent acts against people who date to say something other than what you agree with.

Re:Black-on-black gun violence is much more likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment exhibits exactly what the GP is talking about. You intentionally ignore the far more significant problem that kills hundreds and injures thousands of African Americans each year in Chicago alone. Instead you choose to focus on the far smaller number of cases nation-wide where African Americans have attacked police officers, who in turn have had no choice but to defend themselves using deadly force, like in the Michael Brown incident.

Re:In the US, legal representation is a RIGHT

[Anonymous Coward]

Triggered snowflake is triggered. Quick, someone get xer to a safe space!

Yes. Under the same circumstances

[Anonymous Coward]

But so far BLM hasn't tried to raise money to defend a murderer of innocents, so it's not been tested yet.

Tell me, if BLM had decided to raise a defence fund for some neo-black panther who was found having killed several people first, would you be asking if the alt-right and neo-nazis were going to be held to the same standard?

When ISIS were refused any method of fund raising, did you ask then? No. Why not? Better question is "Why now"?

Re:Is there a doubt he ran into the crowd with a c

[Anonymous Coward]

But denying someone access to legal representation or the funds to hire legal representation, is un American.

Your post earlier:

Who said they were necessary. I await your next stupid post.

r u rly that dumb?

Re:Is there a doubt he ran into the crowd with a c

[bradley13]

Is there doubt? Actually, yes. Was it him? Did he do it intentionally? Is he sane?

All three of those questions deserve to be answered carefully, in front of a judge. There is actually some reasonable doubt about the second two.

Sites refusing him a platform are within their rights, but are skipping the "innocent until proven guilty" bit. Unethical, IMHO.

Re:In the US, legal representation is a RIGHT

[Ol Olsoc]

Aaaaand you proved his point. You're being a dickhead because you don't agree with his message.

You're like the Antifa guys who claim to hate Fascists, but act exactly like the Fascists of old who shout down and commit violent acts against people who date to say something other than what you agree with.

I don't agree with Kim Il Sung's message, or ISIS either. That doesn't mean I have to support them in this country. They are enemies, just like White Supremacists and Neo Nazis. Enemies.

So anyhow, if one of your people comes after me and tries to run me over with his car, and I exercise me second amendment right to defend myself, and pop him between the eyes - it means I am just as bad as him? Ridiculous.

Sorry, but your anarchist anti-American wet dream does not apply to people who want to violently overthrow our government, and carry the flag of the worst government ever foisted upon humanity. Your fist's right stops when it meets my chin.

They have their own websites

[gurps_npc]

Not going to name names, no need to help bigots.
But they have web sites specifically designed to raise cash for alt-right causes.

Re:They have their own websites

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Hatreon or Wesearchr?

Yeah, they give no fucks. Ban away. it just forces them to develop their own infrastructure. And they have enough support to fund it, too. Sucks to be you.

Re:In the US, legal representation is a RIGHT

[Ol Olsoc]

Triggered snowflake is triggered. Quick, someone get xer to a safe space!

Sorry, but you and your ilk don't understand normal discourse, so I have to get to your level.

Funny how people who believe in the first amendment are the Anonymous Cowards in here.

Re:All the white supremacists supporter discust me

[Anonymous Coward]

n1gger lover

Joe Kennedy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was Joe Kennedy bought all the Nazi company stock from George HW Bush when Bush sold because he found out what the Nazis were beginning to do to Jews. It didn't seem to bother Joe Kennedy though.

The curator of the Holocaust museum in Florida will tell you all about it.

WARNING

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a BLACK ONLY space"

"No WHITES allowed"

Re:Black-on-black gun violence is much more likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing at all.

Which by an interesting coincidence is the answer to "what role should the race of the victim play when using an incident of a police officer killing an unarmed citizen as a talking point to push for reform of police training and procedures."

hate?

[Anonymous Coward]

SO who gets to decide what is a hate group? If you dont agree with someone are you a hate group?

Help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I donate to help identify the Nazi assholes to their bosses, so that they'll lose their jobs?

I don't want to buy hotdogs from assholes.

Re:Help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right here.

Know thy TRUE enemy George Soros

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: George Soros is caught YET AGAIN sponsoring or being connected to these seditious traitor groups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnwJRvPXE-I/ [youtube.com] & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa0YrFIrXM8/ [youtube.com] & also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irlXfouo5Gs/ [youtube.com]

* This is even MORE than "truth" (can be purely relative based on feelings or perception) - THOSE LINKS ARE FACT!

APK

P.S.=> Want someone to blame? George Soros (the man who said he was a GOD & even sold HIS OWN FELLOW JEWS into Hitler's grasp) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZhIrYxOQsI/ looking to get us all to KILL ONE ANOTHER (classic "divide & conquer") - Soros has outright STATED he wants to collapse the USA (it's in the globalist's way, as are ALL Christian OR constitutionally based republics) & it's NOT like he hasn't knocked currencies (thailand), and even the bank of england, over - even ISRAEL the nation even HAS OUTRIGHT CONDEMNED HIM as well as his own home nation Hungary... apk

Re:Know thy TRUE enemy George Soros

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no someone left the gate open at the cunt farm and fat lying virgin fuckwad APK got out again. Hows it feel to be the resident joke troll?

Re:Black-on-black gun violence is much more likely

[Bert64]

Because if those african-americans are members of gangs who are shooting each other, then it is the duty of the police to put a stop to this criminal activity.
If the police are confronting a suspect who has a gun and is suspected of having used already to kill someone then naturally those officers will want to protect themselves from being killed by that suspect, which may necessitate shooting first because if you let the suspect shoot first it might be too late.

Are you advocating that black on black violence should not be dealt with by the law, and that the police should allow them to shoot each other? That would certainly reduce the number of blacks being shot by police, but would do nothing to reduce the number being shot overall.

TIL...

[Anonymous Coward]

/. has become a cesspool for WS and Nazi apologists.

Re: Black-on-black gun violence is much more likel

[Anonymous Coward]

And 83% of white people shot, are shot by other white people.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

So what's your point?

WRONG: /.ers disagree with you... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

I like your host file system by Karmashock

* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

APK

P.S.=> UNIDENTIFIABLE do-nothing "ne'er-do-wells" like YOU & "your kind" can't do the same, lol... apk

Re:WRONG: /.ers disagree with you... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is buying your pretence that your malware does anything.

Re:Is there a doubt he ran into the crowd with a c

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I see the video doesnt show him accelerating hard directly at a group of people for several hundred yards,and make no attempt to brake.
The kind of stupidity shown in your post is excessive even for alt right scum.

Civilian Lives Matter

[K. S. Van Horn]

You're right, it's not a case of "the cops hate minorities"; it's a case of the cops viewing themselves as soldiers and the rest of us -- white, black, or whatever -- as the enemy. There's a very real problem with hyper-aggressive, militarized police in this country, but BLM obscures it behind a cloud of identity politics.

Then why do BLM/Antifa get funding?

[sethstorm]

They express hatred in a near identical way.

You can twist yourself in knots...

[Anonymous Coward]

...trying to defend racists while maintaining "I'm not a racist, but...". Fact is, millions of you Americans died in two wars fought against racists/fascists (your civil war and WWII), and now I am seeing (supposedly) well educated folks on Slashdot bending over backwards to defend Nazis in your own country in our current . Cognitive dissonance must be an exhausting affliction from which to suffer.

Love,
A Canadian

Re:You can twist yourself in knots...

[Jack_the_Tripper]

We also fought a couple wars against communists yet I see a bunch of them rioting and looting on American streets on a regular basis with implicit support from local *cough*Berkeley*cough* governments.

I suppose you have a point?

Re:You can twist yourself in knots...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe your country lost one of the wars you allude to quite badly, and the other ended up in a stalemate that has persisted to this day. Well done. (golf claps)

I would also love to see you point to any evidence - any evidence at all - that supports your absurd claim. Pro tip: right wing conspiracy theory blogs are not reliable sources of information, but they excel at bringing froth to the mouths of fragile conservative snowflakes.

Still with love,
A Canadian

you obviously don't know

[publiclurker]

what virtue is. Perhaps you should remain quiet until you have a clue.

Re:Is there a doubt he ran into the crowd with a c

[naughtynaughty]

The state has the burden of a presumption of innocence. I don't and neither do crowd funding sites.

If GoFundMe wants to ban fundraising for accused murderers, that's not a problem. And since someone is sure to say :"but what if they someday refuse to fund people accused of drawing pictures of kittens?" I'll happily worry about that if it ever happens. Some slopes are slippery but most are figments of people's imagination

Of course there is a racial bias

[HBI]

There's also a huge racial bias in the crime statistics, and it isn't all 'racist cops', either. Probably very little of it actually comes down to race.

The USG does its best to keep this information away from people, but the real story here is that you have to stop thinking of people on racial lines and start thinking socioeconomic differences. As soon as you do that, you realize the most important data point about crime in the US. It's all concentrated in the cities. There is virtually no class of crime that isn't concentrated in the urban areas.

So how does the USG cloud this state of affairs? By grouping metropolitan areas together in statistics, so that you can't see the stark differences between crime rates in expensive suburbs or nearby inner cities. I suppose this serves some sort of political purpose, but to me it is murky. Will the proles rebel if they know their cities are full of crime and the whiter than white suburb isn't? I doubt it.

The reason why race figures into it is the overall poor socioeconomic status of particular minorities. Meaning there is much more chance that they will be LIVING in said cities.

A primary reason why crime is concentrated in the cities is NOT the socioeconomic status of the people committing the crimes. Despite how seemingly 'obvious' this is, people who are poor aren't automatically criminals, in fact quite the opposite in most cases. The poor are probably more law-abiding in the overall than their wealthier cousins. No, the actual reason is that the cities have social services, and that attracts people with mental problems. It's the reason why cities have bag ladies and homeless people all around. There's no way they'd go to redneck land - there is no shelter there. No free food. Maybe Medicaid at most.

Then you have the corollary impact of the social services - dysfunctional families that don't stick together because there are perverse economic incentives not to. So you have a population of ready-made juvenile future criminals who don't have adequate parental supervision because of poorly designed benefit programs that were supposed to help, but only hinder.

The cops in this are rather neutral. First, most city forces are heavily mixed-race by this point. This isn't LA in the 1980s anymore. Second, the cops are mostly just trying to get to the pension age and get out. The legal environment for cops in most cities has been toxic for at least 25 years. Careers end instantly. If they wanted to be a badass, they went to work for a suburban force. If they could get a job there.

Blaming the cops seems to be convenient, but it's not true and it solves nothing. I advocate all white cops leaving city forces. When the city forces are 100% minority, then let's hear about how racism is the issue. There are real problems that aren't even being considered and will continue to fester until they are addressed directly.

Re:Of course there is a racial bias

[david_thornley]

You're assuming that the listed crime rate between the center cities and the suburbs means what it appears to say. There's lots of things that could throw that off. Police who are looking for bad behavior are more likely to find it than police who aren't. Pretty much every element of the police and court system is harder on blacks than on whites, given the same behavior. Given that, blacks are going to be less cooperative with the police, intensifying the hostility and leading to further problems.

I fail to understand why being forced to stay in a dysfunctional family is less likely to produce criminal behavior than being in a smaller family. You do know what "dysfunctional" means, don't you?

Re:Of course there is a racial bias

[HBI]

The families would probably be less dysfunctional if forced to stay together because then one of the parents would likely be looking out for the kids. Leaving it to the mother alone, especially in the absent of older generation supports, is a recipe for disaster. Single point of failure.

I disagree about the black/white thing. It mostly only looks that way because more blacks (in proportion to their 13% of the population) come into contact with law enforcement. As for why, see above for a big reason.

There is mistreatment, but the Mad Max mentality of the cities doesn't increase cops' tenderness and love, to put it mildly. You're not going to get kinder, gentler policing out of a shitty situation like city police departments face today. Civilian review boards and harsh punishments aren't going to fix it either, else they would have already. You want nice, go to the suburbs. If you want it in the cities, fix the socioeconomic problem and reconstitute families.

Re:Of course there is a racial bias

[david_thornley]

You know, despite living in the center of a city, the closest I've seen to Mad Max was on a Blu-ray. From the people I personally know (not a random or statistically significant sample), the ones in the suburbs have had more crime problems than the ones in the center cities, and didn't get help from the police.

Fuck the nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

That too, but it only amplifies my point. About the only thing the wedding cake guy has on his side is a claim of "religious freedom" which I doubt crowd-funding sites will try to assert... and if the SCOTUS hangs its hat on "religious freedom" being the discriminating factor, then, well, long live The Great Spaghetti Monster.

I guess you missed that bit where homosexuals are just wanting to get married to each other, and nazi are ready to crank up the gas chambers and ovens and murder as many people as possible.

Re:Fuck the nazis

[skids]

I guess you missed my whole point and/or mistook me for some other poster. I certainly do not consider asshat hatemongers deserving of group protections. But there's a bunch of these idiots here, so I wanted to get it across clear without allowing their persecution complex muddy the waters: My point was entirely to gloat at the irony of one right wing cause celebre, if successful, setting a precedent that would confound any and all efforts to litigate against businesses that don't care to ply their trade in support of white power bunkum.

We are wholly agreed on the "Fuck the nazis" point, though.

If you want money for people with minds that hate

[JeffOwl]

All I can tell you is brother, you have to wait.

No need to BUY it - it's free, &... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: It's safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Malwarebytes hpHosts' hosts/RECOMMENDS me!

Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&cid=49747129/

Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491/ "Host file accessing the Internet - particularly browsing the Web - is actually faster... Spybot Search & Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans & other forms of malware"

OReilly hosts security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windows/2004/03/30/hosts.html/ & hosts speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/excerpt/winxphacks_chap1/index1.html?page=3/

APK

P.S.=> China = imitation = flattery http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/

LOL at 'hate'.

[Anonymous Coward]

So 'hate' now means "any attempt by white people to stop the coming mass murder of the entire white race by millions of unwanted non-white immigrants, who are being FORCED on every white person on the planet.
Care to show me when white people took to the streets en masse during the 1950s and asked for mass immigration?
The woman who was killed by the car reversing over her had just smashed in the rear window with a baseball bat, aided by two men also with baseball bats, and a third men was smashing in the passenger side window with a baseball bat, so the driver had to reverse out of there or wait to be beaten to death. What would you have done?

Re:Is there a doubt he ran into the crowd with a c

[Cederic]

Which video? I haven't seen one showing the activity you've described.

Da-Nold!

[Anonymous Coward]

Da-Nold! Da-Nold!

Your racist buddies say, Keep Up The Good Work! They know you use coded language to align yourself with them and they appreciate it.

They also want to confirm that you are meeting them at Starbucks this Friday. See you there Bestie!

Re:Black-on-black gun violence is much more likely

[david_thornley]

If you actually bother yourself to read about some of the killings BLM complain about, you'd realize that blacks get killed without any illegal or improper activity, and the cops get off. The one who murdered Castile just got a $48K severance package to get him off the force.

I'm advocating that police be held responsible for killing other people for no particular reason. That's all.

Re:In the US, legal representation is a RIGHT

[david_thornley]

He's a goddam Nazi. There's plenty of people whose messages I don't agree with. I'm a lot more polite about most of them than about Nazis. Except when discussing legal rights, which the Nazi murderer is getting, being against Nazis is a really crappy basis for a slippery slope argument. Equating being against Nazis with being against people you disagree with is a lame and intellectually dishonest argument.

I don't like Antifa either, and when I've seen one drive a car into a group of people with intent, I'll happily not support him.