The ACLU should’ve punched them in the face and I shouldn’t be the only one with no problem just saying that.
7 Likes
This is such a bogus argument. “Tolerance” doesn’t mean letting Nazis put all their enemies in camps. That’s “being a Nazi.”
2 Likes
I think you agree with what the comic is saying. That to defend tolerance requires intolerance of those who are intolerant.
It doesn’t require not allowing Nazis to peacefully assemble and peacefully speak. A society can throw the Nazis in prison if they go beyond that. Germany didn’t need to prevent Hitler from speaking or assembling his brownshirts. They just needed to execute him and his cronies after he was convicted of treason.
go on
I’m perfectly fine living in a society where the ACLU doesn’t rush to defend Nazis.
1 Like
Yes. Basically everyone agress that these rights are not absolute. If someone’s stated end goal is abolishing democracy they should not be able to claim democratic rights to achieve it. Democracy has the right to defend itself.
1 Like
It is illegal to try to overthrow the government. It isn’t and shouldn’t be illegal to talk about overthrowing the government or be vaguely in favor of doing so.
This dude plotted and attempted to overthrow the government with a bunch of other people. We are long past the point of idle talk with these people.
Fuentes? He hasn’t been charged with anything and didn’t enter the capitol. I think he made a speech there but getting over Yates is a very high bar and I doubt he cleared it.
The modern standard is the imminent lawless action test, from Brandenburg v Ohio. Advocacy of violence at some undefined point in the future is protected speech. Advocacy of illegal violence at some specific time, such as January 6, 2021, that is likely to incite such action, would not be protected by the First Amendment.
Did Fuentes do that?
I could see some people interpreting his words as such.
Civil libertarians are pro-death penalty now? Huh, learn something new everyday.
I really doubt you do.
I think it should be illegal.
You think that the Communists who were imprisoned in Yates shouldn’t have had their convictions overturned?
The conspiracy is alleged to have originated in 1940 and continued down to the date of the indictment in 1951. The indictment charged that, in carrying out the conspiracy, the defendants and their co-conspirators would (a) become members and officers of the Communist Party, with knowledge of its unlawful purposes, and assume leadership in carrying out its policies and activities; (b) cause to be organized units of the Party in California and elsewhere; (c.) write and publish, in the “Daily Worker” and other Party organs, articles on the proscribed advocacy and teaching; (d) conduct schools for the indoctrination of Party members in such advocacy and teaching, and (e) recruit new Party members, particularly from among persons employed in the key industries of the nation. Twenty-three overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were alleged.
If their ultimate goal was to overthrow the democratic government as laid out in the constitution and replace it with an undemocratic government then they do not deserve the protections of the constitutions.
We can use some nuance and differentiate between vague “communism is swell” musings and “let’s have a one party rule” advocacy that exceeds a treshold of negligibility.
I was sloppy in my language. I didn’t mean to imply that.
Democracy as set forth in the constitution doesn’t leave that much room for interpretation. A communist one party rule is not it, neither is abolishing the states and only have a democratic central government. If someone wants the latter or some other democratic form of government they will have to achieve it through a democratic process.
I have to point out that some people here advocate for one party Democratic rule, in the context of “We can’t let the GOP retake power because they will rig elections and end democracy.”