The First Amendment applies to the state, not to private actors. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, so here it is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See the first word in that sentence. It says "CONGRESS". It doesn't say "GOOGLE", it doesn't say "PRIVATE BUSINESS", it doesn't say "JOE JOHNSON OF ALBANY NEW YORK". It says "CONGRESS".
Who has taken their free speech away? They can find some other place to host their site. Quit conflating private entities giving these bastards the boot to some sort of state suppression. The First Amendment protects you from the state silencing you. Private actors are under no such obligation.
I'd say it is very well crafted towards the target audience; disaffected young white males. It has remarkable success, just look at all the crypto-fascists on/.
The modern Neo-Nazi pretty much mirrors the view of their spiritual forebears. If you're not espousing Aryan superiority, then you're either a emasculated collaborator with the Jewish conspiracy or a Communist (in some Neo-Nazi's eyes one and the same). I realize the parent may not be a Nazi, but the rhetoric of the White Supremacy movement has been adopted with extraordinary fidelity by the Alt-right, though I suspect most members of the Alt-right are too naive or stupid to realize it.
If that logic held, everyone would have been subscribing to all those boutique white supremacy periodicals being distributed via snail mail forty years ago.
Perhaps because there are Libertarians, and then there are alt-right types or worse masquerading as Libertarians to white wash their vile views. I think Libertarians, at least on economics, are hopelessly naive, but when it comes to issues of free speech, I tend in that direction. People have a right to speak their mind, but no one is under any obligation to hand them a microphone.
Thank you. Neo-Nazis are free to shout their evil filth in the public commons, but they're not welcome in my livingroom, and by extension on any website I host or hosting service I own. The First Amendment is a restriction on the state interfering in free expression, but private citizens, as individuals or in groups (like, say, a web hosting company) have every right to restrict what kind of speech they broadcast.
Let the Nazis go to the Dark Web along with the drug dealers and kiddy porn purveyors. It sounds like the right kind of hell for those evil monsters.
And that freedom to walk away from speech one does not like also applies to companies like Google and GoDaddy. They too enjoy the freedom to not associate or help spread hateful speech.
No matter how you try, you're not going to get the First Amendment to apply to private businesses. The First Amendment is a restriction on the government being able to silence your speech. Discourse between private citizens has no such protection.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Other than some people demanding Trump's impeachment (and it's hardly limited to the far left), I don't know any organization who wants to kill the conservatives and nuke Russia. That looks to me like your strawman. In other words, you're just making it up, or, at best, taking a few wingnuts comments and then declaring that the entire movement's official policy is the same. It's all part of the game of trying to make groups like BLM and Antifa look as bad as groups we do know our very bad; namely White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. I'm curious as to why you would even want to take part in such an exercise. Is there some reason you need to white wash white supremacists?
Slashdot Mirror
The First Amendment applies to the state, not to private actors. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, so here it is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
See the first word in that sentence. It says "CONGRESS". It doesn't say "GOOGLE", it doesn't say "PRIVATE BUSINESS", it doesn't say "JOE JOHNSON OF ALBANY NEW YORK". It says "CONGRESS".
Seriously no. Nothing in the DMCA requires a hosting company to keep up white supremacist sites.
Who has taken their free speech away? They can find some other place to host their site. Quit conflating private entities giving these bastards the boot to some sort of state suppression. The First Amendment protects you from the state silencing you. Private actors are under no such obligation.
I'd say it is very well crafted towards the target audience; disaffected young white males. It has remarkable success, just look at all the crypto-fascists on /.
Or it could just be that polite society is attempting to re-exert some degree of control via social censure.
The modern Neo-Nazi pretty much mirrors the view of their spiritual forebears. If you're not espousing Aryan superiority, then you're either a emasculated collaborator with the Jewish conspiracy or a Communist (in some Neo-Nazi's eyes one and the same). I realize the parent may not be a Nazi, but the rhetoric of the White Supremacy movement has been adopted with extraordinary fidelity by the Alt-right, though I suspect most members of the Alt-right are too naive or stupid to realize it.
If that logic held, everyone would have been subscribing to all those boutique white supremacy periodicals being distributed via snail mail forty years ago.
Perhaps because there are Libertarians, and then there are alt-right types or worse masquerading as Libertarians to white wash their vile views. I think Libertarians, at least on economics, are hopelessly naive, but when it comes to issues of free speech, I tend in that direction. People have a right to speak their mind, but no one is under any obligation to hand them a microphone.
Thank you. Neo-Nazis are free to shout their evil filth in the public commons, but they're not welcome in my livingroom, and by extension on any website I host or hosting service I own. The First Amendment is a restriction on the state interfering in free expression, but private citizens, as individuals or in groups (like, say, a web hosting company) have every right to restrict what kind of speech they broadcast.
Let the Nazis go to the Dark Web along with the drug dealers and kiddy porn purveyors. It sounds like the right kind of hell for those evil monsters.
And that freedom to walk away from speech one does not like also applies to companies like Google and GoDaddy. They too enjoy the freedom to not associate or help spread hateful speech.
No matter how you try, you're not going to get the First Amendment to apply to private businesses. The First Amendment is a restriction on the government being able to silence your speech. Discourse between private citizens has no such protection.
Even Damore has come out against the Alt-right.
The Swiss banks tried to hide behind that for years... "Oh you see, our confidentiality rules are so verrrryy ethical."
Yes, it's always good to have Nazi collaborators around.
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.
Except he wasn't....
http://www.snopes.com/george-s...
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.
What exactly does that have to do with African-Americans being more likely to be shot by police than white Americans?
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.
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?
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.
So we can take away from this that you either never took a statistics class, or you gave out sexual favors to pass the course.
Yeah, but those are for black and Latino offenders. You can't expect a God-fearing white man to put up with a public defender.
Because pointing out the greater likelihood of being shot by police if you're black than if you're white is clearly hate speech...
Other than some people demanding Trump's impeachment (and it's hardly limited to the far left), I don't know any organization who wants to kill the conservatives and nuke Russia. That looks to me like your strawman. In other words, you're just making it up, or, at best, taking a few wingnuts comments and then declaring that the entire movement's official policy is the same. It's all part of the game of trying to make groups like BLM and Antifa look as bad as groups we do know our very bad; namely White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. I'm curious as to why you would even want to take part in such an exercise. Is there some reason you need to white wash white supremacists?