ANTIFA - page 2

As if the current violence everywhere ANTIFA goes is not enough, they are now planning for nationwide protests to oust Trump/Pence. ANTIFA Plan Nationwide Riots On Nov. 4th To Forcibly Remove Trump... Read More

  1. by   herring_RN
    I'm nearly certain this is an ANTIFA website:
    TORCH NETWORK
  2. by   azhiker96
    I don't accept couching ANTIFA and Alt Right as an either/or proposition. White supremacists views are ugly and wrong but that doesn't mean trampling their First amendment rights is justified. I must be older than most.

    I remember when the Illinois Nazis wanted to hold a march through Skokie, Ill. That town had a lot of Jews and in particular a lot of Holocaust survivors. The ACLU actually represented the Nazis in court and won their permit to march. It took me awhile to wrap my head around that. However, free speech means any idiot can get up and say whatever they believe whether it is White supremacy, Black supremacy, Pro-Religion, Anti-Religion, Anti or Pro LBGTQIAPK.

    Everyone else has the right to nod their head, laugh and point, hoot, Bronx cheer, or whatever in response. Shutting down free speech is a Fascist tactic.

    Sure, we could shut down speech by the Nazis. Who's next? How about Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam, Communists, Anarchists, etc. How do we decide? Maybe we just vote on which speech is acceptable and which can be blocked.
  3. by   azhiker96
    Quote from herring_RN
    I'm nearly certain this is an ANTIFA website:
    TORCH NETWORK
    Thanks for posting this website. Their Points of Unity say a lot about them. Also, they have an article about recognizing and beating a White Supremacist they recognized in a bar. Reminds me of Nazis beating random Jews they might see in public in the 1930s-40s.
  4. by   nursej22
  5. by   ElvishDNP
    Quote from azhiker96
    I don't accept couching ANTIFA and Alt Right as an either/or proposition. White supremacists views are ugly and wrong but that doesn't mean trampling their First amendment rights is justified. I must be older than most.

    I remember when the Illinois Nazis wanted to hold a march through Skokie, Ill. That town had a lot of Jews and in particular a lot of Holocaust survivors. The ACLU actually represented the Nazis in court and won their permit to march. It took me awhile to wrap my head around that. However, free speech means any idiot can get up and say whatever they believe whether it is White supremacy, Black supremacy, Pro-Religion, Anti-Religion, Anti or Pro LBGTQIAPK.

    Everyone else has the right to nod their head, laugh and point, hoot, Bronx cheer, or whatever in response. Shutting down free speech is a Fascist tactic.

    Sure, we could shut down speech by the Nazis. Who's next? How about Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam, Communists, Anarchists, etc. How do we decide? Maybe we just vote on which speech is acceptable and which can be blocked.
    Do you think speech openly advocating violence against people is protected speech? I'm not talking about generic 'white power' slogans; although they're BS, they're also easily drowned out and ridiculed. I'm talking about speech that advocates harming or killing other people. It's out there and it incites people to assault whatever group happens to be in the crosshairs that day: Jews, Hispanics, blacks, LGBTs, whatever. That - to me- crosses a line and violates others' right to life and should not be considered free speech.
  6. by   toomuchbaloney
    My government says that the racists may March and shout their message. My community says that that may be allowable under the law but it is our job to let them know that diversity, not homogeneity is desired, that inclusion rather than exclusion is our preference.
  7. by   azhiker96
    Quote from ElvishDNP
    Do you think speech openly advocating violence against people is protected speech? I'm not talking about generic 'white power' slogans; although they're BS, they're also easily drowned out and ridiculed. I'm talking about speech that advocates harming or killing other people. It's out there and it incites people to assault whatever group happens to be in the crosshairs that day: Jews, Hispanics, blacks, LGBTs, whatever. That - to me- crosses a line and violates others' right to life and should not be considered free speech.
    I do agree that advocating violence or inciting to riot are not protected speech. Whether it is Farrakhan calling for 10,000 to rise up and kill or KKK advocating shooting immigrant kids it is wrong. I don't think the courts protect that kind of speech.
  8. by   azhiker96
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    My government says that the racists may March and shout their message. My community says that that may be allowable under the law but it is our job to let them know that diversity, not homogeneity is desired, that inclusion rather than exclusion is our preference.
    Yup, so let me pose a question. If you sponsor a rally and get a permit, how would you want protesters to show their opposition. Should they hold their own separate rally or should they march to confront, block, drown out, and brutalize people in your rally?

    What do you think? Do we want a civil society or is might makes right the way to go?
  9. by   azhiker96
    Btw, the Trump rally in Phoenix was largely non-violent. Protesters did throw a few rocks at police and got pepper spray on return.

    My backup nurse was late getting to work though. She thought the rally was earlier in the day and came through the area. At one intersection, protesters hit on the sides of her car. Happily it's an old car and they didn't break her windows. It would have been tough recovering patients without her.
  10. by   elkpark
    Quote from azhiker96
    Yup, so let me pose a question. If you sponsor a rally and get a permit, how would you want protesters to show their opposition. Should they hold their own separate rally or should they march to confront, block, drown out, and brutalize people in your rally?

    What do you think? Do we want a civil society or is might makes right the way to go?
    To me, that's a straw man argument. There's quite a lot of middle ground between your implied notion of "civil society" and "might makes right." It's hardly an "either/or" question. People who apply for and receive a permit for a public gathering/demonstration have a right to hold their demonstration. I don't believe that the permit entitles them to be free from being exposed to or protected from any opposing viewpoints. "Brutalizing" people (which, if you're talking physical assault, is illegal)? No. "Confront, block, drown out?" It is, as they say, a free country (at least for the time being. Trump and his delicate snowflake supporters seem to have a v. different view of what constitutes a "free country"). If it's a matter of protesters actually physically blocking the route the group is legally permitted to march, I have no problem with counterprotesters attempting to block the route but would also expect the police to clear the route to permit the march to occur. But I don't believe that a permit to rally or march guarantees you freedom from opposing views also being expressed.
    Last edit by elkpark on Aug 23
  11. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from azhiker96
    Yup, so let me pose a question. If you sponsor a rally and get a permit, how would you want protesters to show their opposition. Should they hold their own separate rally or should they march to confront, block, drown out, and brutalize people in your rally?

    What do you think? Do we want a civil society or is might makes right the way to go?
    Well, if the rally is being held in a city that knows what it is doing, such as Boston, you place limits on the demonstrators (even if they have a permit). For instance, NO weapons. No showing up with AR 15s, clubs or tiki torches. You also keep demonstrators and counter-demonstrators separated.

    But that isn't what happened in Charlottesville. Again, how was the PD there so woefully unprepared? They got practice the KKK earlier in the summer. Somebody in the PD needs to held accountable for the violence. It was a prime example of poor planning.
  12. by   azhiker96
    The Phoenix PD kept the two groups apart. That was their job and they did it well. Experience has shown we can’t allow protesters to mix with rallies unless we want to see blood. While the majority of marchers are peaceful there always seems to be a few bent on expressing their views with insults and slurs, pepper spray, and objects thrown or swung.

    I’m not a fan of allowing that kind of behavior.
  13. by   toomuchbaloney
    I appreciate the answers to the question that was posed to me. I agree it was a straw man.

    Regular, very fine people don't engage in public demonstrations of racism, white supremacy, and neo nazi ideology. They just don't.

    There simply is very little to compare to the KKK and neo naxi marches from a far left ideology. It's not BLM and it's not AntiFa although the right wing rhetoric is really working hard to convince their listeners that there is no real differences. There are no liberal fascists.

close