I Dislike People Who Are Uneducated, Ignorant Bigots
And what's further...
Speech is indeed a protected freedom in the US, but there are certain reasonable limits.
So, yes, you're right racist pigs are entitled to their opinions and they are even allowed to air them in public -- technically there's no crime there.
Buuuut...
The right to free speech had been refined through the decades through Supreme Court actions and there's something there for those that don't forget the role of each of the three branches of government. Laws made through Supreme Court decisions can't really be preventive like legislated laws, but they do still have weight -- as long as we don't forget them.
While the Court has always upheld the right to free speech it has encountered the exact situations that we saw this weekend and may see in the future if these White Supremacist rallies continue to be a thing. In the 1890s-1930s "anarchists" and "bolshevics" plagued the US and while their leaders got to conduct their free speech their followers occasionally shot, maimed, bombed and killed for the cause -- sometimes right after their gatherings.
This weekend David Duke and certain other racist leaders spoke publicly in Charlottesville. They spoke to the crowds and they were recorded. THEN shortly after the rallies were broken up one of their followers drove a car through a crowd of unarmed counter-protesters, killing one and injuring 19.
If Duke and/or any of his cohort said ANYthing that could be construed as permitting, suggesting demanding or even encouraging causing harm for their cause or saying that the gathered White Supremacists had a responsibility or duty to perform any dangerous action ...
THEN David Duke and others saying such things can and should be arrested for violating incendiary speech decisions like
"government could regulate any speaker who would counsel or advise a man to commit an unlawful act." Masses v. US 1917
and
"government could punish all speech, including advocacy of illegality, that had a tendency to encourage illegality."
and
"government could punish speakers who had the explicit intention of encouraging crime." (these 2 from 1920s decisions including the Beverage--Orchard case)
and
"a danger need not be very clear and present if the ultimate harm shall be very grave." Dennis v. US 1951
and
"where advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio. 1969 - an actual KKK case.
In short someone needs to review the things Klan leaders said at the rally and if there's any chance that Fields could have taken them as permission or encouragement then it's time to issue warrants for the arrest of those leaders. Their speeches are probably on news services and YouTube right now.
Get 'em off the streets.
Speech is indeed a protected freedom in the US, but there are certain reasonable limits.
So, yes, you're right racist pigs are entitled to their opinions and they are even allowed to air them in public -- technically there's no crime there.
Buuuut...
The right to free speech had been refined through the decades through Supreme Court actions and there's something there for those that don't forget the role of each of the three branches of government. Laws made through Supreme Court decisions can't really be preventive like legislated laws, but they do still have weight -- as long as we don't forget them.
While the Court has always upheld the right to free speech it has encountered the exact situations that we saw this weekend and may see in the future if these White Supremacist rallies continue to be a thing. In the 1890s-1930s "anarchists" and "bolshevics" plagued the US and while their leaders got to conduct their free speech their followers occasionally shot, maimed, bombed and killed for the cause -- sometimes right after their gatherings.
This weekend David Duke and certain other racist leaders spoke publicly in Charlottesville. They spoke to the crowds and they were recorded. THEN shortly after the rallies were broken up one of their followers drove a car through a crowd of unarmed counter-protesters, killing one and injuring 19.
If Duke and/or any of his cohort said ANYthing that could be construed as permitting, suggesting demanding or even encouraging causing harm for their cause or saying that the gathered White Supremacists had a responsibility or duty to perform any dangerous action ...
THEN David Duke and others saying such things can and should be arrested for violating incendiary speech decisions like
"government could regulate any speaker who would counsel or advise a man to commit an unlawful act." Masses v. US 1917
and
"government could punish all speech, including advocacy of illegality, that had a tendency to encourage illegality."
and
"government could punish speakers who had the explicit intention of encouraging crime." (these 2 from 1920s decisions including the Beverage--Orchard case)
and
"a danger need not be very clear and present if the ultimate harm shall be very grave." Dennis v. US 1951
and
"where advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio. 1969 - an actual KKK case.
In short someone needs to review the things Klan leaders said at the rally and if there's any chance that Fields could have taken them as permission or encouragement then it's time to issue warrants for the arrest of those leaders. Their speeches are probably on news services and YouTube right now.
Get 'em off the streets.
