Support NeoGAF

Adaren · Aug 22, 2017

This is the same mayor that directly blamed Trump for the violence shortly after it happened, right?

Maybe there was a procedural / clerical error for why the topic wasn't directly on the agenda (like the agenda got locked down before the rallies and, with all the craziness going on, some intern forgot to update it). They clearly talked about it, and there's no mention in the story that the officials were trying to dodge the topic once it was actually broached or that they failed to acknowledge it once the meeting started. There are things they should answer for, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt on the agenda thing.

Prototype Viktor · Aug 22, 2017

Sai-kun said:
the only thing neo nazis should get is a boot to the neck honestly

no no no boot to the lower thigh to shoulders only. could miss if you go for the neck

Slayven · Aug 22, 2017

Tain said:
I don't like the suggestion that stances that are "political" are somehow inherently valid, honorable, etc. I don't get how anybody could suggest that there haven't been mountains of heinous things throughout history that were the result of political ideology. We shouldn't be treating brazenly terrible stances like white nationalism as apolitical, because that can allow ghoulish politicians to get away with horrible things as long as they keep up appearances.

This is unrelated from whether I think the permit should have been issued, though (it shouldn't have been).

That is why folks should continue to call out the bullshit, from dogwhistles to bullhorns

MarionCB · Aug 22, 2017

The agenda for the meeting the first since the Aug. 12 rally did not mention the rally or its aftermath.

How is this even remotely possible? You have to suspect the local government there of nefarious motives if they thought what happened can be ignored.

RedAssedApe · Aug 22, 2017

pretty surprising. thought the vice mayor will bellamy was involved in the counter-protests and was going hard at trump

MattKeil · Aug 22, 2017

Nightbird said:
You need to learn history.

The term "Nazi" is an abbreviation of the name their political party had.

A derogatory nickname that they didn't use themselves, though. Also these Nazis aren't really advocating for the political stances the 1930s Nazis did, aside from the general ethnic cleansing crap. An argument could be made that by so drastically simplifying what they self-define as Nazi policy, they have invalidated their own status as a political movement, since bigotry alone isn't really a political opinion, it's a moral failing.

Stinkles · Aug 22, 2017

Stumpokapow said:
Why precisely were the protestors arrested and removed? Because the way they expressed their political opinions was frightening and disruptive to others?

Lots of places have local laws and rules about disrupting meetings and as long as they offer a right to reply via those rules I'm ok with the free speech implications but having cops on hand at what should have been the most contentious meeting of the year - yet glibly ignoring the topic- seems a bit convenient.

IrishNinja · Aug 22, 2017

MattKeil said:
Also these Nazis aren't really advocating for the political stances the 1930s Nazis did, aside from the general ethnic cleansing crap.

i mean
that's kind of a big deal right there, as far as a political group's thesis statement goes

Apt101 · Aug 22, 2017

devilhawk said:
^ I imagine there is a level of decorum that is stipulated in these sessions. Standing on tables would be a surefire way to get yourself removed. Though, I really doubt that fact is even controversial.

Even racist cops that weren't incompetent would have at least known to keep antifa and nazis away from each other. That shit's pretty standard. At best they are incompetent, at worst they're also nazis.

You're right, it's pretty standard for councils to include the rules in their agendas - available online. Here is the summary for that meeting: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=55825

The guidelines for public comment is on page 2.

Even though it's merely at city level they're still a legislative body doing official work. If you want to comment you can, but if you start protesting in a manner that prevents them from functioning, the police will obviously remove you. I personally think protest was apt. It's appalling that the first item on the agenda wasn't to address what just happened - or at least acknowledge it and hold public comment before proceeding.

LogicAirForce · Aug 22, 2017

UberTag said:
So these people at the council meeting have been detained but still no one has been locked up for the assault on Deandre Harris, eh?

Nobody believes in personal accountability in the year 2017.

holy shit what. is this true? Wasn't there video of it? How have they not caught those fuckers

Lightning_Roller · Aug 22, 2017

Can't believe they didn't mention the damn rally. You fucked up, officials and you know it.

Wolfgunblood Garopa · Aug 22, 2017

The police chief at the very least needs to be held accountable.

Kusagari · Aug 22, 2017

The people are right in that the police absolutely failed. Look at how the police in Boston handled their rally and how the police here basically did jackshit as two sides were brawling with each other.

Heads should roll.

GoldenEye 007 · Aug 22, 2017

Ozigizo said:
"Asked how 20-year-old James Alex Fields allegedly drove down what was supposed to have been a blocked-off street, killing 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others, Thomas said: Im not sure.

Also, fuck the police chief.

Has the police chief publicly acknowledged the attempted lynching of Deandre Harris that occurred next door to a police station at all?

Last time I saw him on camera, he was being a mealy-mouthed son of a bitch over the situation.

Brawly Likes to Brawl · Aug 22, 2017

"Never mind that terrorist attack that happened last week. We'd like to announce that the elderly sock hop will be postponed from its original date..."

Familienoberhauptvogel · Aug 22, 2017

Ri'Orius said:
...what did you think Nazis were? Just the bad guys in Indiana Jones movies?

The National Socialist German Workers' Party was a political party. They had a 25-point plan to Make Germany Great Again. Modern day Nazis aren't as well organized, but their goal is still to affect policy to advance their agenda (generally stuff like "keep America white by halting immigration").

Their ideas are disgusting, but... how is it not a political stance?

if we go by the NSDAP then you should also mention that the party has subsequently been outlawed after it was abolished.

It's akin to taking to the streets to protest for terror organzations, something not protected by the first amendmen as far as I'm aware.

Malvolio · Aug 22, 2017

If only those protesters had a permit.

TyrantII · Aug 22, 2017

Should we not have done that? Was that wrong?

Gordon Shumway · Aug 22, 2017

Brawly Likes to Brawl said:
"Never mind that terrorist attack that happened last week. We'd like to announce that the elderly sock hop will be postponed from its original date..."

How they thought they'd be able to just ignore a national tragedy, that has been spoken about globally..folks should probably find employment elsewhere..

Simon Belmont · Aug 22, 2017

duckroll said:
My opinion on this as a non-American is that as long as America wants to have the pretense of "free speech" as a unique entitlement, things like this will be a problem. By allowing people to say anything they want, there is always the risk that populism overwrites social decency. Of course there will be long arguments about who has the right to decide what is decent. In many other developed countries, there are laws against being openly racist. It is simply something unacceptable.

I'm also not American, but my observation has been it's more than just speech; Americans are allergic to the idea of regulations. Not all of them, but on the aggregate they just can't agree to regulate anything.

rudger · Aug 22, 2017

Stumpokapow said:
Why precisely were the protestors arrested and removed? Because the way they expressed their political opinions was frightening and disruptive to others?

Politicians could've been hurt

NastyBook · Aug 22, 2017

Police officers flooded the room

Oh, so they do know how to mobilize and protect people.

Squirrel Killer · Aug 22, 2017

The agenda for the meeting the first since the Aug. 12 rally did not mention the rally or its aftermath. But angry residents and protesters took over the meeting, hurling expletives at the officials and dressing them down.

The agenda did mention it, but not in such a way that anyone would know. It's item "U" on the consent agenda:

u. RESOLUTION: Confirmation of the Declaration of a Local Emergency (1st of 1 reading)

And the only reason it's there is as a resolution ending the state of emergency that was declared in response to the rally.

Case law is pretty clear that they had to allow the permit, so the "blood on their hands" is a little overwrought, however, it's completely tone deaf for them to not acknowledge the tragedy by having a minute silence, a resolution denouncing the Nazis, a motion regarding removal of Confederate statutes, and/or a motion to get a report from staff on the rally and how to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Chmpocalypse · Aug 22, 2017

Ri'Orius said:
"Kill all the Jews" is hate speech/incitement and thus illegal.

"Blood and soil" and "white lives matter" are not hate speech or incitement, and thus should be legal. There were a lot of shitty people at the rally, but to my knowledge nothing was chanted that reaches the "hate speech" bar (and no, dogwhistles/slogans you think are transparent declarations of genocidal intent don't count). "Jews will not replace us" is the closest thing I've heard and it falls well short IMO.

Tolerance of intolerance can lead to bad things, yes. But Hitler is not an inevitable fate for all democracies. Meanwhile prohibiting "only the really bad speech" is its own slippery slope (one the US has fallen down itself--see the Red Scare).

Okay, no.

No.

Those are examples of hate speech.

L Thammy · Aug 22, 2017

To those saying this is hate speech, is that legally true by the definition of U.S. law? Honest question.

I personally think it should be, but the municipal government still only has the powers given to them, correct?

Boylamite · Aug 22, 2017

Ri'Orius said:
Neo-nazis should be given permits to protest. The idea of protest permits being withheld by the government based on the politics of the protesters is wildly antithetical to the first amendment.

They made a lot of mistakes, but allowing people to protest isn't one of them.

How very centrist of you.

Nazis should not be given a platform, end of story.

rudger · Aug 22, 2017

Boylamite said:
How very centrist of you.

Nazis should not be given a platform, end of story.

It is not centrist to believe in freedom of speech even if it is hateful and goes against your being. Holy fuck, what am I even reading on here.

Edit:

L Thammy said:
To those saying this is hate speech, is that legally true by the definition of U.S. law? Honest question.

I personally think it should be, but the municipal government still only has the powers given to them, correct?

No. It is not hate speech. They broke no laws with their chants. For a gaming related example, go see what the courts said to Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesss...I won't spell it. About the threats lobbed at them

Two Words · Aug 22, 2017

Boylamite said:
How very centrist of you.

Nazis should not be given a platform, end of story.

There is a dbig difference between private platform and public platform. It's a very different thing for a private company to deny Nazis a platform. A government doing so is entirely different. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

commedieu · Aug 22, 2017

Stumpokapow said:
Why precisely were the protestors arrested and removed? Because the way they expressed their political opinions was frightening and disruptive to others?

Wait a minit gooby...

andthebeatgoeson · Aug 22, 2017

Contradicts the idea that these are outsiders? This is organic, home grown resistance.

andthebeatgoeson · Aug 22, 2017

Two Words said:
There is a dbig difference between private platform and public platform. It's a very different thing for a private company to deny Nazis a platform. A government doing so is entirely different. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people are willing to give up on the 1st amendment. Boston did a better job in terms of the police.

The police need to stop worrying about made up racism against the Navi and start addressing the real threat of Nazis and the alt right. Let them march but contain their ass to small locations. Letting them wander thru colleges, yelling their shit is the wrong way.

But like gaf says, it's hard to control your family when y'all, um, when they are racist.

StrangeRoboMemory · Aug 22, 2017

When white supremacists spread toxic hatred and advocate for violent ethnonationalism, people fall over themselves to defend their free speech and their inherent political right to say what they want, but when black folks and POC speak their mind, it's all about being the bigger man/woman, extend the olive branch, stop antagonizing them, "this is why they voted for Trump, to spite you", etc.

theCalamity · Aug 22, 2017

rudger said:
No. It is not hate speech. They broke no laws with their chants.

We aren't using the law to make this determination.

The ultimate goal of Nazis is to create a white ethnostate by any means. They try to soften or obfuscate it by saying it would be peaceful, but we all know that it wouldn't. It will be deadly, torturous, and evil. Likening this to a political stance might be technically correct, but morally wrong and disregards the connotations of it. Calling it a political stance will only lessen the impact of this type of speech. It goes from being outrageous to something more mundane such as raising taxes like someone said earlier. Discussing the existence of minorities in this country will just be routine. It will just be a political view.

Squirrel Killer · Aug 22, 2017

L Thammy said:
To those saying this is hate speech, is that legally true by the definition of U.S. law? Honest question.

I personally think it should be, but the municipal government still only has the powers given to them, correct?

I believe some local governments have tried to outlaw what they term "hate speech," but there is no legal "hate speech" exemption to the First Amendment's prohibition of government actions against free speech.

theCalamity said:
We aren't using the law to make this determination.

rudger was responding to someone specifically asking about the law. Yes, in common usage, the Nazis were using hate speech. No, it's not "hate speech" by the definition of U.S. law because there is no definition of "hate speech" in US law (except perhaps in some local governments' laws that will almost certainly get overturned whenever they get challenged since this is such a firmly established point of US case law.)

Gordon Shumway · Aug 22, 2017

andthebeatgoeson said:
The police need to stop worrying about made up racism against the Navi..

Zakalwe · Aug 22, 2017

Ri'Orius said:
"If we let Nazis hold rallies then we'll get another Hitler" is fallacious, just as "if we ban hate speech we'll end up in 1984" is.

No, there's nothing fallacious about either of those statements unfortunately.

EDIT: read what you're written entirely wrong, please ignore this post.

LiK · Aug 22, 2017

Thank you protesters.

commedieu · Aug 22, 2017

StrangeRoboMemory said:
When white supremacists spread toxic hatred and advocate for violent ethnonationalism, people fall over themselves to defend their free speech and their inherent political right to say what they want, but when black folks and POC speak their mind, it's all about being the bigger man/woman, extend the olive branch, stop antagonizing them, "this is why they voted for Trump, to spite you", etc.

I always found that last part revealing. The voting out of spite part. You're no friend of any cause if someone calling you deplorable(because you're part of a party that supports nazis), makes you vote out of spite. To teach someone a lesson that you have to be nice to them, else they side with gassing all Jews.

Some stand.

2017+ is some white people and pearl clutchers last Stand. People don't like the idea of POC being equal. We see this in pay, justice systems, hiring, all measurements. That's why Trump won. It's a hail marry. That's why the nazis are trying to gain traction and saying how they really feel, only to have your aunt and uncle on Facebook see both sides. People are showing their ass. Even some self hating minorities are falling in line with a world where they don't know how to get that scratch behind their ear from their white superiors.

It's funny to watch them get so nervous. It's because they think we are going to treat them, as they treated us. But they'll never admit and come to terms with how they treated us. They just try to legislate equality away, without ever addressing it. Or taking any responsibility.

What else on earth did "maga" stand for?

Westbahnhof · Aug 22, 2017

Zakalwe said:
No, there's nothing fallacious about either of those statements unfortunately.

You think banning hate speeding leads to 1984 scenarios? You mean like in the terrible dictatorship we have today, once known as Germany, also Austria, probably a bunch more?

Linkstrikesback · Aug 22, 2017

Chmpocalypse said:
Okay, no.

No.

Those are examples of hate speech.

Be careful there. Purely on the slogan, if you declare the words "White lives matter" as hate speech, you open the gate to "Black lives matter" being easily declared hate speech too, even if the people chanting each slogan are polar opposites.

commedieu · Aug 22, 2017

Westbahnhof said:
You think banning hate speeding leads to 1984 scenarios? You mean like it the terrible dictatorship we have today, once known as Germany?

That's why I like this forum. There's always literally a first world nation proving how Americas fears never manifest in reality.

theCalamity · Aug 22, 2017

Squirrel Killer said:
rudger was responding to someone specifically asking about the law. Yes, in common usage, the Nazis were using hate speech. No, it's not "hate speech" by the definition of U.S. law because there is no definition of "hate speech" in US law (except perhaps in some local governments' laws that will almost certainly get overturned whenever they get challenged since this is such a firmly established point of US case law.)

Ah, you right. Got mixed up.

Somnid · Aug 22, 2017

The failure was to uphold public safety. Protesters and cars should not be on the same roads, if it looks like the rally is going south then it should be broken up. Exactly as would be expected if it was, say, a social justice rally. These things need more uniform policing.

U2NUMB · Aug 22, 2017

What exactly were they going to talk about? New street signs... the city summer fair.. holy shit man what did they expect to happen? Totally out of it from a context stand point.

Zakalwe · Aug 22, 2017

Westbahnhof said:
You think banning hate speeding leads to 1984 scenarios? You mean like in the terrible dictatorship we have today, once known as Germany, also Austria, probably a bunch more?

EDIT: no, I need to read. The comment I originally replied to wasn't saying what I thought it was. Eep.

psychowave · Aug 22, 2017

Is the bar really so low that "blood and soil" and "white lives matter" don't count as hate speech?

Linkstrikesback said:
Be careful there. Purely on the slogan, if you declare the words "White lives matter" as hate speech, you open the gate to "Black lives matter" being easily declared hate speech too, even if the people chanting each slogan are polar opposites.

Westbahnhof · Aug 22, 2017

Zakalwe said:
I think you need to read my posts again.

You said there was nothing fallacious about them statement that hate speech leads to a 1984 type situation. I'm gonna look through your other posts, but unless you said "I'll be pretending it's opposite day", I don't think I misunderstood you.
Edit: Ah, good. I thought it was a weird opinion, judging from your other posts.
What did you think he said?
Double Edit: Sorry for the snark. I've talked to too many Americans who really think that restrictions on hate speech will lead to dictatorship.

Sho_Nuff82 · Aug 22, 2017

Ozigizo said:
"Asked how 20-year-old James Alex Fields allegedly drove down what was supposed to have been a blocked-off street, killing 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer and injuring 19 others, Thomas said: Im not sure.

Also, fuck the police chief.

Come the fuck on guys. I've seen police security blockades. They park construction machinery and put up heavy concrete barriers at major intersections You couldn't ride a bike down those things if they were actually trying.

Where is the accountability? "I'm not sure" isn't good enough for 20 injured persons if you had planned security measures.

Slayven · Aug 22, 2017

Sho_Nuff82 said:
Come the fuck on guys. I've seen police security blockades. They park construction machinery and put up heavy concrete barriers at major intersections You couldn't ride a bike down those things if they were actually trying.

Where is the accountability? "I'm not sure" isn't good enough for 20 injured persons if you had planned security measures.

And it was a one way street, they blow those off all the time for shit

L Thammy · Aug 22, 2017

psychowave said:
Is the bar really so low that "blood and soil" and "white lives matter" don't count as hate speech?

As far as I know, yes, the bar really is that low. At least from the standpoint of U.S. law.

With regards to the thing you quoted, I think you're missing some nuance here. It is necessary for a law like designed to combat hate speech to be carefully worded. I don't know if there's any practical law that would ban "white lives matter" because the statement by itself isn't controversial; very few people would seriously claim that white lives don't matter. Unless you try to ban specific phrases, which is kind of pointless because people are always going to try to skirt the law and come up with new phrases.

Ignoring whether the possibility of getting hate speech laws in America is realistic or unrealistic, I think the main things they'd have to single out are symbols historically associated with the Confederacy, Naziism, or slavery displayed for the purpose of celebration; and speech used to incite or justify violence against individuals based specifically on race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, or religion.

Support NeoGAF

Charlottesville City Council Meeting Erupts Over White Nationalist Rally

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2

Clothed, sober, cooperative

Member

Member

Neo Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Blizzard

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Junior Member

Junior Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads