Poll: Most California Democrats want to restrict free speech from white nationalists

[Steve Petersen]

Poll: Most California Democrats would restrict white nationalists' speech

 

[Living Soul]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[381465]

I skimmed the article.
I don't trust polls.
I would like to see and hear the exact wording of the question (s) asked and context of lead in prior to the question.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is pretty sad that in a country in which people from all sides of the spectrum had traditionally been passionately for free speech, the trend has now become that people's feelings matter more than the right to express an opinion.

 

[miamited]

Hi steve,

Well, I'm not particularly aligned with any political party, but...

We all have opinions regarding issues and subjects that we are asked our feelings about. Jesus says that if we find the truth, that the truth will set us free. Does that mean that once having found the truth that we are then free without limits? Can I, once coming to understand and believe the truth, then go out and murder someone or steal from someone? The point being that even when we crow about freedom, there are limits attached to that idea of freedom.

So, while if someone asks me such a question, I can agree that we have in this country this idea of free speech, but that doesn't mean that murderers and thieves are free to hold rallies where they propose the idea that they should be allowed to work their evil without consequence. Free speech and the right to assemble have limits when they are used in a public forum such as a demonstration. The right to assemble must be peaceable and I think that many white nationalist groups have often demonstrated that they can't hold their demonstrations in a peaceable manner.

They tend to get fired up with hate and often get into skirmishes. So, should we limit such groups, that have proven to cause non-peaceful gatherings, the future right to assemble? It's the whole reason that most local governments require some sort of permitting process for large public gatherings. We do want to have some sort of control over the kinds of ideas that are being espoused by any such gathered group.

For me, it's sadly funny that such groups as white nationalists, are most often gathered under confederate and nazi flags. Two very sure symbols of hate and dissension that are a part of the world's history. Is that something that our idea of free speech should be used to protect and expect to create peaceful gatherings? An awfully lot of good American men and women died under both of those symbols. The entire world gathered for war against the nazi regime. Should we now allow people to espouse such political and social ideas for which men and women gave of their life's blood to protect us from? Doesn't that seem fairly silly? Families, cities and states fought with their very blood to protect one form of government that was already established as the official government of these United States from a usurping government that desired to overrun that established government. People died for that cause. Now we should give that cause free reign among the people. Oh, it was a stupid war. We should have allowed those who supported the ideas and agenda of the confederacy to flourish.

So, I have the right of free speech to say anything I want to say to someone else in a gathering of friends and neighbors. But when my attempt is to hold some public rally for my ideas that have been soundly hated and destroyed in the past, should there be some limits on such gatherings? Should the government which protected us from such a government being installed as the government of these United States now allow those same ideas and political leanings to be hurled with such hate and venom as many white nationalist gatherings tend to become without any consequence? Should the ideology of the confederate form of government, for which thousands upon thousands died on the grassy countryside of this nation, now be given free reign to be espoused in public gatherings?

I honestly can't imagine christians being in favor of such a thing, but then I couldn't imagine that christians would support a lying, greedy, narcissistic adulterer as president. What do I know?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[SolomonVII]

Hi steve,

Well, I'm not particularly aligned with any political party, but...

We all have opinions regarding issues and subjects that we are asked our feelings about. Jesus says that if we find the truth, that the truth will set us free. Does that mean that once having found the truth that we are then free without limits? Can I, once coming to understand and believe the truth, then go out and murder someone or steal from someone? The point being that even when we crow about freedom, there are limits attached to that idea of freedom.

So, while if someone asks me such a question, I can agree that we have in this country this idea of free speech, but that doesn't mean that murderers and thieves are free to hold rallies where they propose the idea that they should be allowed to work their evil without consequence. Free speech and the right to assemble have limits when they are used in a public forum such as a demonstration. The right to assemble must be peaceable and I think that many white nationalist groups have often demonstrated that they can't hold their demonstrations in a peaceable manner.

They tend to get fired up with hate and often get into skirmishes. So, should we limit such groups, that have proven to cause non-peaceful gatherings, the future right to assemble? It's the whole reason that most local governments require some sort of permitting process for large public gatherings. We do want to have some sort of control over the kinds of ideas that are being espoused by any such gathered group.

For me, it's sadly funny that such groups as white nationalists, are most often gathered under confederate and nazi flags. Two very sure symbols of hate and dissension that are a part of the world's history. Is that something that our idea of free speech should be used to protect and expect to create peaceful gatherings? An awfully lot of good American men and women died under both of those symbols. The entire world gathered for war against the nazi regime. Should we now allow people to espouse such political and social ideas for which men and women gave of their life's blood to protect us from? Doesn't that seem fairly silly? Families, cities and states fought with their very blood to protect one form of government that was already established as the official government of these United States from a usurping government that desired to overrun that established government. People died for that cause. Now we should give that cause free reign among the people. Oh, it was a stupid war. We should have allowed those who supported the ideas and agenda of the confederacy to flourish.

So, I have the right of free speech to say anything I want to say to someone else in a gathering of friends and neighbors. But when my attempt is to hold some public rally for my ideas that have been soundly hated and destroyed in the past, should there be some limits on such gatherings? Should the government which protected us from such a government being installed as the government of these United States now allow those same ideas and political leanings to be hurled with such hate and venom as many white nationalist gatherings tend to become without any consequence? Should the ideology of the confederate form of government, for which thousands upon thousands died on the grassy countryside of this nation, now be given free reign to be espoused in public gatherings?

I honestly can't imagine christians being in favor of such a thing, but then I couldn't imagine that christians would support a lying, greedy, narcissistic adulterer as president. What do I know?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

To answer a question with a question, should communists have been given free reign to Hollywood, to espouse their ideas through the media?
This is what McCarthyism was all about. America has traveled down this road already.
And more people died from being struck with the communist hammer and sickles than died at the hands of nationalists.

Should anti-America people be given free reign to burn flags and express their venom against America?

It is all very well and good to signal our virtue to each other about how detestable these racists and bigots are. And let's face it, about 99% of Americans find their stomach churning over the existence of such people.

But freedom is either a value or it is not.
Today a skinhead, tomorrow Trumbo.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is against the law to advocate murder and mayhem, by the way, as it should be.
As for the violence, it is more often than not the response of the anti-fascists, who even cause violence at rallies that are not held by White nationalists.
Jewish conservative speaker Ben Shapiro is an example of someone that these antifascist facists call a fascist, and Berkeley puts itself into lock down mode in order to finally give the guy a forum to speak.

Should the fact that antifascists label everyone they disagree with as fascists, and then threaten violence against any public rallies, be a reason to ban the public speaches and rallies.
It is not just the skinheads that are being subjected to this violence either.
Ben Shapiro, who is labeled a fascist by the anti-fascists is in fact the biggest target of the alt-right anti-Semites, and it is his speech that is being threatened too.

I don't think that anyone is a better Christian for saying that his speech ought to be curtailed either, or that people who voted for Trump are vile poor excuses for Christians human beings for that matter.


It should be duly noted that the people who want to shut down the neo-nazis here have pretty much the same contempt for Trump voters too.

Where does the curtailment of free speech end then?
Answer: It doesn't.

Ergo, I find what you say repugnant, but I defend to the death your right to say it. It is either that, or totalitarianism.

Take your pick, America.

 

[miamited]

To answer a question with a question, should communists have been given free reign to Hollywood, to espouse their ideas through the media?
This is what McCarthyism was all about. America has traveled down this road already.
And more people died from being struck with the communist hammer and sickles than died at the hands of nationalists.

Should anti-America people be given free reign to burn flags and express their venom against America?

It is all very well and good to signal our virtue to each other about how detestable these racists and bigots are. And let's face it, about 99% of Americans find their stomach churning over the existence of such people.

But freedom is either a value or it is not.
Today a skinhead, tomorrow Trumbo.

Hi solomon,

Well, I'm not particularly in agreement that there was a time that communism was allowed 'free reign' to Hollywood. I also don't equate someone making a movie with a group of demonstrators holding a gathering out on the streets. I absolutely agree that McCarthyism wasn't a particularly glorious time in our country's history any more than the days of slavery were.

That more people died being struck with the hammer and sickle than died at the hands of nationalists is certainly an arguable point, but that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about American blood being shed to rid the world of such ideals as Nazism and a government as represented by the revolutionary confederacy. Many people gave of their lives that an ideal such as Nazism and their ideas of some super race were not allowed to spread.

Freedom is a value, but I don't see that value as being that everyone gets to do and say whatever they want to do or say. As I said, Jesus has declared that the truth allows us freedom, but that freedom is not without its rules and governance. When we are set free by the truth of God's word, we will not then be able to stand in heaven and shake our fists at God and His Sovereignty. We will not be allowed to stand on those streets of gold and hold public demonstrations against God's rule of law. Trust me on that. Freedom doesn't really mean what some seem to want it to mean.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[SolomonVII]

Hi solomon,

Well, I'm not particularly in agreement that there was a time that communism was allowed 'free reign' to Hollywood. I also don't equate someone making a movie with a group of demonstrators holding a gathering out on the streets. I absolutely agree that McCarthyism wasn't a particularly glorious time in our country's history any more than the days of slavery were.

You are certainly not required to agree with me. But, the communism purge of Hollywood is a real thing, and it centred on the repugnance that many Americans had against all things communist back in the 1950's, in the wake of American communist sympathizers giving the USSR their nuclear secrets. There were communists around, and they did have an influence.
Also, relatively speaking McCarthyism was not as inglorious as slavery, I don't think anyway. Feel free to disagree of course.

That more people died being struck with the hammer and sickle than died at the hands of nationalists is certainly an arguable point, but that isn't what I was talking about.

Well, it is not an arguable point actually. The numbers of people that have died in the twentieth century directly due to communism are huge. Mao was the biggest mass murder of all time. The facts are all there, and the numbers simply are not disputed by any historian of any credibility at all.

Your point was that many Americans died at the hands of racists and Nazis, which is true. Many more people in total died under communism.
It was a fair counter-point to bring that up therefore.

I was talking about American blood being shed to rid the world of such ideals as Nazism and a government as represented by the revolutionary confederacy. Many people gave of their lives that an ideal such as Nazism and their ideas of some super race were not allowed to spread.

Fewer gave up their lives to thwart the advance of communism with the result being that more people died because of communism.
Communism is not the lesser evil just because more people have ignored how malignant and malevolent it is.

Freedom is a value, but I don't see that value as being that everyone gets to do and say whatever they want to do or say.

Free speech does not include doing whatever you want. As the saying goes, the limits of your being able to swing your arms stops at my nose.
Freedom of speech on the other hand, is a bedrock of free society. Being able to chose between ideas and ideologies, as is required by the citizenship of any democratically based society, requires that all ideas are open for discussion.
There cannot be an official position on what is a good idea or what is a bad idea. To do so means that government usurps the power reserved for the people. That describes tyranny, and Americans understand well enough that they are under no compunction to accept tyranny.

As I said, Jesus has declared that the truth allows us freedom, but that freedom is not without its rules and governance. When we are set free by the truth of God's word, we will not then be able to stand in heaven and shake our fists at God and His Sovereignty. We will not be allowed to stand on those streets of gold and hold public demonstrations against God's rule of law. Trust me on that. Freedom doesn't really mean what some seem to want it to mean.

I have very little insight of what the nature of heaven will be. In America though, people need to be allowed to shake their fists at God or at Allah or at Satan and make their case against the perceived tyranny of any Diety, or president, or anything that they deem fit to shake their fists at.

And when those protestations become violent, the State reserves the right to use water cannons and billy clubs and rubber bullets and any other punitive measures required to get the mob back into acting civilized.
In the 1960's mobs ruled the streets of Detroit and the Daleys ruled the streets of Chicago. What needs to be controlled is the violence, and not the tongues. That is what a free people do.

 

[miamited]

Hi solomon,

You responded to my post:

You are certainly not required to agree with me. But, the communism purge of Hollywood is a real thing, and it centred on the repugnance that many Americans had against all things communist back in the 1950's, in the wake of American communist sympathizers giving the USSR their nuclear secrets. There were communists around, and they did have an influence.

Oh, I am by no means denying that there was a temporary time of scare tactics that McCarthyism was used to throw fear into some people in Hollywood. What I'm denying is that those days and those activities were actually righteous in what they were attempting to do. Yes, somehow people got scared of what Hollywood was producing and then created an entire scare campaign to seek to destroy and imprison certain persons and used accusations that they were communist sympathizers against them. However, I think history has shown that such wasn't the case. That Hollywood was not overrun with communist sympathizers and that communism did not have some 'free reign' in Hollywood.

You can read up on some of the history of that time here: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fbi-report-names-hollywood-figures-as-communists

The information gathered through some network of informants finally came out to be fairly dubious information. Here's a supplied quote that pretty much describes what this time in history was really all about: tough-guy Edward G. Robinson declared, “These rantings, ravings, accusations, smearing, and character assassinations can only emanate from sick, diseased minds of people who rush to the press with indictments of good American citizens. I have played many parts in my life, but no part have I played better or been more proud of than that of being an American citizen.”

Lives were ruined because some half wit man by the name of George McCarthy created a witch hunt atmosphere to search out supposed communist sympathizers and the truth is that the majority of those so labeled were no more communist sympathizers than the poor women who were put to death and imprisoned because of the Salem witch hunts. Fear is a great motivator in a lot of people. Sadly, that's pretty much how the current presidential administration is run.

Well, it is not an arguable point actually. The numbers of people that have died in the twentieth century directly due to communism are huge. Mao was the biggest mass murder of all time. The facts are all there, and the numbers simply are not disputed by any historian of any credibility at all.

Well, the reason that I used the term 'arguably' was because that's going to depend on how you're defining a nationalist. According to Webster:

loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

• Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.

Mao was likely a nationalist in his ideology of the Chinese way of life and for China itself as a nation. Yes, the form of government was basically communist, but the leader, Mr. Mao would have been a nationalist. He exalted his nation above all others and placed primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups. Most all nation leaders have a fair amount of nationalism in their beliefs about their own countries.

So, for one to say that more people suffered under communism than nationalism becomes an arguable point.

Fewer gave up their lives to thwart the advance of communism with the result being that more people died because of communism.

I'm not really clear on how this discussion got to be about the supposed evils of communism and how many people have died under various communistic forms of government. Friend, a lot of people have died under despotic governments. People are being murdered in the Middle East and in South America and the African continent by governments that aren't really communist. They are nations of more despotic rule where the national leader says everything must be his way or you're going to die. The Muslim laws that call for beheadings and beatings and stoning aren't communist governments. So, again I would respectfully ask, "How did this discussion suddenly become how much worse communist governments are than those who promote some racist and hateful nationalism?"

Free speech does not include doing whatever you want. As the saying goes, the limits of your being able to swing your arms stops at my nose.

Yes, but for many of these hate mongering white nationalists, when they get together in large numbers, arms and noses seem to have a great difficulty staying separated.

Freedom of speech on the other hand, is a bedrock of free society. Being able to chose between ideas and ideologies, as is required by the citizenship of any democratically based society, requires that all ideas are open for discussion.

Oh, I don't know about that. Canada doesn't have any constitutional guarantee of free speech and yet they seem to be a pretty free society. Great Britain doesn't seem to have any constitutional guarantee of free speech and they get along pretty well as a society. While I agree that everyone should be allowed to say pretty much anything that they'd like to say, there are limits as to what is good for a society.

As I said, I don't think you'll find absolute free speech as one of the rights that God is going to grant those who receive the promise of life with Him. He's not going to put up with some person going out into the streets and trying to teach people that having sexual relations with children should be ok and lawful.

You obviously feel differently about this and that's perfectly ok, but because I have absolute freedom of speech...I think you're wrong. A society should have the authority to stop actions that cause or can be reasonably expected to cause civil disobedience and unrest.

There cannot be an official position on what is a good idea or what is a bad idea.

So...there should not be any official position that someone's idea to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma City is a good or bad idea. Someone speaking through a bull horn espousing the murder of all the black people in order to cleanse the nation for the white races cannot be held as a good or bad idea. Yea, I got that.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[SolomonVII]

So...there should not be any official position that someone's idea to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma City is a good or bad idea. Someone speaking through a bull horn espousing the murder of all the black people in order to cleanse the nation for the white races cannot be held as a good or bad idea. Yea, I got that.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

That is not what was either being said or implied by me.
If you had read what I had said with any understanding at all, you would have known that I had already said that calls to violence is a crime, and ought to be a crime.

If Mao is deemed to be a Nazi now, then it ought to be noted that even Obama has paid homage to a Nazi by putting an ornament of Mao on his tree.

Jewish Nazis Julius and Ethel Rosenburg kicked off the Red Scare big time with their nuclear espionage that has made the current wiki leaks into child's play.
Labelling all communists Nazis, or nationalists who are socialists, means that McCarthyism and what you are advocating in the shutting down of the free speech of White Nationalists are one and the same thing.
Nazis are Nazis after all.
Moreover, the intelligent Nazis of the communist movement, like the Rosenburg's were, simply are more connected and a bigger threat to America than the white under-educated Nazis crawling out of their mama's basements to rally around their flags these days.
But if the Red Scare of the 50's was not reason enough for blacklists and curtailing America's free speech, then it is pure hysteria to shut down free speech over the listless and impotent movement that are the intellectually challenged and listless losers that make up the current nationalist extremists.

It is logically consistent to be either for shutting all Nationalists up, be they communist or skinhead nationalist, or for shutting down neither, but now that the argument is that they are all of the same stock, it is partisan politics at its worse to shut up only half of these nazis.

 

[miamited]

Hi solomon,

You responded to my post:

If you had read what I had said with any understanding at all, you would have known that I had already said that calls to violence is a crime, and ought to be a crime.

Yes, and then your very next statement was that there can be no official position on what is a good idea or bad idea. After reading your following statement in which you made this claim, and obviously not understanding yourself that you had already denied the truth of the claim, I thought that maybe my adding some additional examples might make the point. It seems that it did. So, there actually can be an official position on whether an idea is a good idea or a bad idea to be expressed in a public forum. Thank you.

I don't know where or who you got the idea that Mao was a Nazi. It certainly didn't come from me. I said that Chairman Mao was most probably a 'nationalist'. If you read the offered definition of 'nationalist' then you would understand that it really has nothing much to do with any particular form of government, but rather one's understanding of their own particular government or nation. A nationalist can be a Democrat or a Republican. A communist or a Nazi. It describes how one feels, or the agenda of, a particular person or group.

Friend, honestly, the more you respond the more I glean that you really don't much understand your own terms and words. Instead you're just someone who has decided that any abridgment of someone's right to say whatever they feel or think in a public square or forum is not being given their right to free speech. Ok. I get it. I guess my ideology is a bit more in line with the Democratic response that you're questioning. I do feel that any government should have the authority to disallow some subjects or words spoken in a public forum, but that such authority should certainly be highly restrictive and must be used to prevent harm to others. That harm being in either word or deed.

I don't agree that we should give a public forum to a group to stand in the streets and yell, "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] go home!!!!"

You'll have to figure out what the first word was in that quote. My children walk the streets of my town as do the children of many others and I have a certain desire to protect them from such unmitigated hate speech.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi solomon,

Re: your tag line from Neitzche unplugged

I'm beginning to understand Neitzche's point. So, let me quit while I'm not quite taken in.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[381465]

The problem is who defines hate speech.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hi solomon,

You responded to my post:


Yes, and then your very next statement was that there can be no official position on what is a good idea or bad idea.

It is not the position of government to dictate ideology. It is up to government in a free country to allow for a free exchange of ideas in order that the people themselves decide.
That does not mean that I am finding white nationalists any less repugnant than any one else, or that violence is okay.

Sheesh.

Anyway we have clarity. Your position is the selectively anti-freedom one, shutting down the skinhead nationalists, and enabling the communists. (It is you that brought up that Mao was a nationalist too, by the way, for whatever bizarre point you were making as a counterpoint to the fact that that communist was the bigger murderer than the nationalists that you want to shut up.)

Mine position is for maximizing freedom and letting everyone have their say, no matter how repugnant I may personally find their ideas.
That is where we disagree.

And I find communists and white nationalists equally repugnant. You are about half in agreement with that.

 

[samir]

Poll: Most California Democrats would restrict white nationalists' speech

Most Democrats I know are very intolerant so I'm not surprised. They attacked a bunch of Christians preaching about the "gay" lifestyle in San Francisco to shut them up and force them to leave because they couldn't tolerate Christian teaching.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Most Democrats I know are very intolerant so I'm not surprised. They attacked a bunch of Christians preaching about the "gay" lifestyle in San Francisco to shut them up and force them to leave because they couldn't tolerate Christian teaching.

s
I find exact opposite. Liberals I know are much more tolerant than Conservatives I know. Conservatives I know be against many things for instance same sex marriage and immigrants. They are afraid of change I think because they cannot adapt. Maybe view of "intolerance" depends which side of fence political opinion is on?