Summary
A group displaying swastika flags on an I-75 overpass in Evendale, Ohio, was confronted by local residents, leading to tensions and a heavy police presence.
Residents pushed past police, seized a flag, and forced the demonstrators to retreat into a U-Haul truck.
Officials, including Cincinnati’s mayor and Hamilton County’s sheriff, condemned the demonstration.
The Jewish Federation and NAACP also spoke out, questioning where the demonstrators came from. The NAACP suggested the current administration’s policies may have emboldened the group.
No arrests were made.
Ok, that’s some bullshit, because they have ruled that causing a panic is illegal. Schenck v. United States, 1919.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47
The law is fucking imaginary.
It’s a different thing, I’m talking about hate speech specifically
You can do hate speech as much as you want in the US, if you threaten someone with violence or incite people to be violent with others it’s something else and so is causing a panic by screaming “FIRE!” in a theater when there’s no fire.
Three different things, one of them is legal and is what was done by the Nazis in that article.
I understood what you were saying. I get the technicality. I was venting that the technicality is bullshit when there is already a precedent that kinda says the opposite.
But the precedent doesn’t really apply here…
The end goal of hate speech is violence, what’s special about the US is that violence targeted specifically against marginalized groups is condoned if not encouraged.
So yes, hate speech that threatens violence against a marginalized group is legal in the US. I.E. Nazis.
Yea but not really though…
You can say “I hate Nazis” and that’s hate speech (as stupid as that might sound), but it doesn’t mean “I want to hurt/kill Nazis”, the intention behind the message isn’t stated therefore the message is lawful.
If you don’t want to punch Nazis you’re probably a bad person.
We’re having a discussion about the law, not morality, I used that as an example to reverse the situation and put the counter protesters in the other position, but it’s exactly the same as those Nazis saying they hate blacks or Jews or whoever, in the US they have the right to say that, they don’t have the right to say they want to hurt them.
You don’t choose to be born Jewish or black, you do choose to be a Nazi, and a Nazi is someone who inflicts violence on people.
Identifying as a Nazi is a threat of violence that is considered legally acceptable in the US because the US already partway to being a Nazi country.
Use whatever example you want, it’s always the same thing. It’s a discussion about laws and you keep mixing your feelings in the equation. In the eyes of the law there’s a difference between stating your hate X and stating you want to be violent towards X, one is legal, the other isn’t, no matter which group X is.
Yes, because the US is halfway to being a Nazi state, the law is overly permissive of Nazis.
Just like how the US started as a white supremacist nation where the law allowed slavery.
My feelings have nothing to do with the extent to which white supremacy and Nazism influences the US state to allow threats of violence against marginalized groups to be permissible. US law is not impartial, it is biased in favor of Nazis and white supremacists.