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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[Herkum01]

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

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

[penandpaper]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

Suuuure, they do.

Re:Black Lives Matter

[Darinbob]

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

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

[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

[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

[jellomizer]

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

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

[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

[ebvwfbw]

Open up your eyes Bill.

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

[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.

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

[rwiggers]

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

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

[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

[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

[Aboroth]

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

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]

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

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

[ganjadude]

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

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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/...

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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

[thejynxed]

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

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: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: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.

hate?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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 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

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?

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.

If you want money for people with minds that hate

[JeffOwl]

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

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.

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: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.

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.