I think it is arguable. It is not protected if it can "reasonably induce fear in the mind of another". http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-282/
Tough one. Letting naziists march is an invitation for counter protestors which inevitably creates a uncontrollable mob. Quite easy to have a psycho ram a vehicle or open fire into that mess. The game changer is how instant and distorted news can be for the first 14 days. The message of the protests can easy be overwhelmed by the message of the violent psychos. Not only does it squash discourse but it encourages more symbolic acts ofviolence. People assume total control or abuse by the government in these situations but it can escalate easily beyond their power
I was looking up my post from 12 years ago (which was what I expected it to be), and ran across this excellent one under a current member's previous moniker (who I won't mention out of respect for his privacy). I would add to Sishir's post when he says, while supporting the 1st amendment, "You can't yell fire in a theatre." I would like to expand a bit on that. I would hope that firearms of all types would be banned from all demonstrations. To be clear - including guns, knives, clubs, blackjacks. If it were up to me, I would include shields and helmets. Why are they needed to exercise freedom of speech? That's assuming the police and other law enforcement agencies are doing their job. That's a serious problem all by itself. The police in Charlottesville failed miserably. Has the police chief been fired yet? If not, he damned well ought to be.
So you agree that in a march if the protesters are bring weapons or shields and helmets their intention is not to protest peacefully?
It depends. But some will be scared/intimidated by it, and that's reason enough to ban weapons, or at the least firearms. Not sure what I think about helmets/shields. They would be some sort of protection against a crazed gunman, so I'm inclined to permit it.
The banning of weapons and backpacks at the Boston event really handcuffed groups like AntiFa and when combined with the overwhelming police presence with no stand down orders, it led to a more peaceful event. Now sure, those who showed up to be violent still were violent, but for the most part it was squashed in a hurry and never got out of control. I think Boston should be the blueprint on how to handle these types of things going forward.
Taking defensive precautions doesn't mean your goal is to be attacked. But I'm ambivalent on the shields, since it can be used in an offensive fashion (e.g. force one's way through a crowd). That in fact happened at Charlottesville. Lack of effective police on hand to prevent hostile physical contact was a major problem, as others have noted.
lol, lets just say we must differ in our interpretations. Hate speech, as much as we all dislike it, is protected speech. Saying that, and I may be going out on a limb here, but I suppose you are referring to them being armed? If that is why you say it was unconstitutional then I suppose you also believe the armed counter-protesters did not have a constitutional right to be there either?
Let's not be silly. You don't go to protest with helmets and shields unless you are looking for a fight. Apparently \they had rehearsed battle formations. I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind with peaceful assembly. The essence of these guys isn't just hate, it's violence against minorities. That is their cause. It's not hate speech, it's goal is to create war.
I do not see what they do as a form of speech, hate or otherwise. Their goal is to incite violence against minorities and they have proven it over and over. You may not be aware of the history of the KKK and neo-nazis groups - but they should be labeled as terrorist entities as that is what they have done in the past.
Its not just Freedom of Speech alone. Thats been well covered now. To me its more about Freedom of REACTION to speech that we need to look more into. (No, protecting motorists to run over protesters is NOT an appropriate provision ... ) Its this idealistic approach that listeners of inflammatory speech are only supposed to sit there remaining calm and understanding no matter WHAT is thrown at them; acting like they are so enlightened on free speech principles that they have emotional DISCIPLINE and ethical debating skills to maintain civility. That is hardly always the case. Demonstrations usually are more strategized and organized, with general populace more raw and unprepared in their handling of riotous speech. "Don't Feed the Trolls" can work ONLINE to a degree. But in real life people will always be off-guard to a PLANNED inciteful demonstration, with PHYSICALLY harmful effects. Its not about allowing people to "act a fool" on both sides, its about PROTECTING yourself, your own rights to liberty. (WHAT that course of "Reaction" is, is what we need to talk about)
You mean : " I am against Anyone limiting MY TYPE of speech. (Especially the ones my speech is SPECIFICALLY against!) " This whole "The OTHER side ISNT following the RULES!" thing going on is stupid now. Conservatives toss out Freedom of Speech AND Religion when Muslim mosques are being built. Colin Kaepernick is free speech, and look at violent outrage over that. Conservatives hardly allow "Free Speech Protections" to causes against their own.
