The Oh So Tolerant Hard Leftist SF Folk

[dales]

I'm no fan of Trump, but this type of behaviour is reprehensible.

Conservatives staging free speech rally attacked by critics
Oct. 17, 2020
Updated: Oct. 17, 2020 10:57 p.m.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A free speech demonstration staged by conservative activists quickly fell apart in downtown San Francisco on Saturday after several hundred counterprotesters surged the area, outnumbering and attacking those gathered, including knocking one in the mouth.

A photographer working for The Associated Press witnessed a Trump supporter being taken away in an ambulance and an injured San Francisco police officer on the ground by San Francisco’s United Nations Plaza.

Team Save America organized the rally to protest Twitter, which it said squelches conservative speech. Members of the group wore red “Make America Great Again” Trump campaign hats and carried pro-police “Thin Blue Line” flags and U.S. flags.

Philip Anderson, the organizer of the event, posted photos to social media of his bloody mouth with a front tooth missing and another hanging loosely. He said anti-fascist protesters attacked him “for no reason."

Anderson took the stage at about 1 p.m. and was greeted by chants and plastic water bottles and glass bottles thrown over police barricades.

The event was canceled, although both sides lingered in the area into the afternoon.


The San Francisco Police Department said three officers suffered non life-threatening injuries when they were assaulted with pepper spray and caustic chemicals. One officer was taken to a local hospital for treatment, the department said.

No arrests were made, the department said.

Anderson called the counterprotesters hypocrites and said they are the reason why he's voting for President Donald Trump.

“I love America, I love this country and I love free speech,” he said.

[Joe Guy]

And this is the conservative free speech rally organizer...

[Burning Petard]

I have always wondered why 'Freedom of Speech" is so often conflated to mean "You must publish my stuff at no cost to me." As I understand it Twitter and Facebook and php Plan B are private organizations and, by the rights recognized in the first amendment to the constitution, are free to NOT publish whatever they please. I have no 'freedom of speech' right to be published in the NY Times letters to the Editor. It ain't censorship, any more than Obamacare is the dreaded deamon of Socialized Medicine. The one time I did get a letter published, it was edited to say the opposite of what I intended.
As Mark Twain is credited with advising: never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.

snailgate

[BoSoxGal]

If only the average voter had a decent civics education that included a working understanding of the Bill of Rights.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I have always wondered why 'Freedom of Speech" is so often conflated to mean "You must publish my stuff at no cost to me."

That does happen. In this case, the nomenclature chosen by the organizer(s) is false - whether or not Twitter allows or disallows particular voices is indeed not a free speech issue. But, the idiot's right to get up on his hind legs and speak freely of his errant opinion is not in doubt. Silencing his protest by violent counter-protest is exactly the suppression of free speech and the ultimate expression of civic intolerance

IMO

[ex-khobar Andy]

There is a point at which I can no longer tolerate intolerance. In 1978, ACLU supported the American Nazi Party's right to march through Skokie (IL) which they chose because many Holocaust survivors lived there. I understand their reasoning but I would not have shared their conclusion.

Having said that, I don't equate the average Trump supporter with Nazis. After all, they are being misled by someone we have grown up to believe has the interests of democracy, freedom, peace, public safety etc at heart. They can be reasoned with (well, some of them, anyway) and shutting them down violently plays into their hands.

[BoSoxGal]

I just watched yesterday’s episode of The Circus, Showtime’s very good campaign political analysis series. They interviewed militia members in person (Michigan III%) and also interviewed researchers who track the militia movement online. One of the in person militia members interviewed openly stated ‘the Civil War would have nothing on what’s coming’ if Trump loses. There are hundreds of thousands of militia members nationwide (as tracked by FBI) who own many of the guns out there, and many more participants of online pages and forums that espouse civil war from the right wing.

I am not aware of any significant similar activity on the left; anybody who is would be welcome to educate me.

[Big RR]

After all, they are being misled by someone we have grown up to believe has the interests of democracy, freedom, peace, public safety etc at heart.

And who would this be? Certainly not Trump; happily most of us grew up, even in the NYC area, without knowing Donald Trump existed. The president? Even the framers of the Constitution did not believe that, which is why we have impeachment written into the document. I don't trust that anyone in power has those interests guiding them, and prefer to judge them on what they do; indeed, I'd bet most of the Trump supporters would not have believed that Obama was guided to promote these interests.

[Sue U]

In this case, the nomenclature chosen by the organizer(s) is false - whether or not Twitter allows or disallows particular voices is indeed not a free speech issue. But, the idiot's right to get up on his hind legs and speak freely of his errant opinion is not in doubt. Silencing his protest by violent counter-protest is exactly the suppression of free speech and the ultimate expression of civic intolerance

IMO

I disagree. A right to free speech does not exempt the speaker from the consequences of his speech. Shouting down a speaker is not "suppression" of his speech, it is telling him the marketplace of ideas thinks his product is crap. (Why do you hate free enterprise?) In the case of speakers advocating for, e.g., fascism and racism, I am prepared to say that a bit of (private non-state) violence in the confrontation of such views is fully warranted.

[ex-khobar Andy]

After all, they are being misled by someone we have grown up to believe has the interests of democracy, freedom, peace, public safety etc at heart.

And who would this be? Certainly not Trump; happily most of us grew up, even in the NYC area, without knowing Donald Trump existed. The president? Even the framers of the Constitution did not believe that, which is why we have impeachment written into the document. I don't trust that anyone in power has those interests guiding them, and prefer to judge them on what they do; indeed, I'd bet most of the Trump supporters would not have believed that Obama was guided to promote these interests.

I was talking about the general global fantasy that the US, and by extension its president, is the arbiter and exemplar of freedom and democracy and the things that flow therefrom.

[BoSoxGal]

Obviously to some degree it IS a fantasy because we now see how fragile our democracy can be, at the same time it is also the ideal that has to some degree unified and kept at bay any other major global conflict for 75 years. So if it falls utterly to dysfunction, where will that leave the future of the global community, especially in the face of an increasing climate emergency with looming natural resource shortages and rising authoritarianism around the globe?

[dales]

I am prepared to say that a bit of (private non-state) violence in the confrontation of such views is fully warranted.

Would that include Trump supporters driving their 4X4's into people in Portland?

[dales]

This just in:

San Francisco police arrest man in assault on Trump backer
Oct. 19, 2020
Updated: Oct. 19, 2020 4:21 p.m.

San Francisco police said they arrested Adora Anderson, 35, of Watsonville in Oakland on Sunday. He was booked into the San Francisco jail on charges of mayhem with a hate crime enhancement.


The organizer of Saturday’s event in downtown San Francisco, Philip Anderson of Team Save America, posted photos to social media of his bloody mouth with a front tooth missing and another hanging loosely. He said anti-fascist protesters attacked him “for no reason.”

Several hundred counter-protesters surged into the area for the 1 p.m. event, overwhelming the handful of conservative activists. Counter-protesters threw glass bottles, filled plastic bottles, metal cans and eggs, said police. The event was quickly canceled as a public safety hazard.

Three San Francisco officers were injured when they were assaulted with pepper spray and caustic chemicals.

Team Save America organized the rally to protest Twitter, which it said squelches conservative speech. Members of the group wore red “Make America Great Again” Trump campaign hats and carried pro-police “Thin Blue Line” flags and U.S. flags.

It was not immediately known if Adora Anderson had a lawyer who could speak on his behalf.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In this case, the nomenclature chosen by the organizer(s) is false - whether or not Twitter allows or disallows particular voices is indeed not a free speech issue. But, the idiot's right to get up on his hind legs and speak freely of his errant opinion is not in doubt. Silencing his protest by violent counter-protest is exactly the suppression of free speech and the ultimate expression of civic intolerance

IMO

I disagree. A right to free speech does not exempt the speaker from the consequences of his speech. Shouting down a speaker is not "suppression" of his speech, it is telling him the marketplace of ideas thinks his product is crap. (Why do you hate free enterprise?) In the case of speakers advocating for, e.g., fascism and racism, I am prepared to say that a bit of (private non-state) violence in the confrontation of such views is fully warranted.

I disagree. And agree. Preventing a speaker from speaking is exactly "suppression" and the ability of a minority to do so is far from indicating that the speaker's product is "crap" in the marketplace of ideas. The issue here was not "shouting down" but violent suppression. The speaker was not (AFAIK) advocating fascism and racism, merely a wrong-headed notion that "da media" squashes rightist opinion while promoting leftist opinion. If the offense of perceived ignorance is to be your recommended target of missiles and fists, then you must hate most citizens of the USA. Touche

Agree . . . oh yes, there comes a point when advocating, encouraging and abetting physical and moral crime must be opposed rather than permitted to flourish. In some cases, physically opposed. This was not such a case.

Who stole your keyboard or did the smiley not operate?

[Big RR]

Sue--certainly shouting down ideas is a time honored tradition (I recall many times standing and shouting "1-2 fuck you"to shout people down), but int he long run it is counterproductive (and it exactly why I personally started to avoid participating in demonstrations; I think the shouting down only makes the idea more compelling--why would someone not want me to hear something?). As for violence, I guess I reluctantly have to agree so long as the message is reprehensible and the violence does not involve agents of the state; as much as it pains me to say it, sometimes violence is the only way to get change.

[Jarlaxle]

In this case, the nomenclature chosen by the organizer(s) is false - whether or not Twitter allows or disallows particular voices is indeed not a free speech issue. But, the idiot's right to get up on his hind legs and speak freely of his errant opinion is not in doubt. Silencing his protest by violent counter-protest is exactly the suppression of free speech and the ultimate expression of civic intolerance

IMO

I disagree. A right to free speech does not exempt the speaker from the consequences of his speech. Shouting down a speaker is not "suppression" of his speech, it is telling him the marketplace of ideas thinks his product is crap. (Why do you hate free enterprise?) In the case of speakers advocating for, e.g., fascism and racism, I am prepared to say that a bit of (private non-state) violence in the confrontation of such views is fully warranted.

If you support having people you do not like attacked for speaking, you are not distinguishable from Hitler's Brownshirts. You also have ZERO room to bitch when it's your ox getting gored. (Though I'm sure you will.)

I remember when liberals had actual PRINCIPALS.

[Jarlaxle]

Sue--certainly shouting down ideas is a time honored tradition (I recall many times standing and shouting "1-2 fuck you"to shout people down), but int he long run it is counterproductive (and it exactly why I personally started to avoid participating in demonstrations; I think the shouting down only makes the idea more compelling--why would someone not want me to hear something?). As for violence, I guess I reluctantly have to agree so long as the message is reprehensible and the violence does not involve agents of the state; as much as it pains me to say it, sometimes violence is the only way to get change.

So...would you be OK with someone you AGREE with being shot dead at a protest by someone he disagrees with? If not, you're a hypocrite.

[Big RR]

Jarl--violence does not necessarily equate to shooting someone dead, it can take many forms; and, FWIW, I do not condone killing someone in nearly all circumstances.

Nor am I going to equate the violence of both sides; it is not hypocrisy to support the violence of the French Underground, yet decry the violence of the nazis. I think you can understand that. There are not always good people on both sides (where did I hear that before?).

In the end, all we can do is control what we are willing to do or not do. I'll make my choices based on my moral beliefs, and if someone chooses to criticize or attack me for that, so be it.

[Sue U]

I disagree. And agree. Preventing a speaker from speaking is exactly "suppression" and the ability of a minority to do so is far from indicating that the speaker's product is "crap" in the marketplace of ideas. The issue here was not "shouting down" but violent suppression. The speaker was not (AFAIK) advocating fascism and racism, merely a wrong-headed notion that "da media" squashes rightist opinion while promoting leftist opinion. If the offense of perceived ignorance is to be your recommended target of missiles and fists, then you must hate most citizens of the USA. Touche

Sue--certainly shouting down ideas is a time honored tradition (I recall many times standing and shouting "1-2 fuck you"to shout people down), but int he long run it is counterproductive (and it exactly why I personally started to avoid participating in demonstrations; I think the shouting down only makes the idea more compelling--why would someone not want me to hear something?).

I prefer mockery and heckling to mere shouting and noise. Like the guy who followed the neo-Nazis around with a sousaphone providing a comic soundtrack for their detestable parade. Or the literal clowns counter-demonstrating for "white flour" and "wife power." And nowhere did I suggest that violence was in fact appropriate for that event in San Francisco. But as Karl Popper pointed out, a tolerant society must be ready to claim a right to suppress intolerance, by force if necessary, in defense of tolerance; those who advocate for intolerance, or for values so far outside the norms of our society as to be incompatible with justice, must be considered to have placed themselves outside the law and the protections of that society.

I remember when liberals had actual PRINCIPALS.

Thankfully I am not a liberal, so I guess I still have principles.

Also, succinctly:

[BoSoxGal]

Brava!