View Full Version : Would you counter-protest?
A question raging on my community's local discussion group is:
Would you show up for a counter-protest if the Nazis wanted to have a rally here?
Interesting question, with some interesting responses being offered.
So, in your community, if you heard in advance that the Nazis were going to show up and have a permitted rally on your village green, what actions would you engage in? What would be your reasoning?
Me personally, I prefer distance from disorder when it's appropriate and moral. Showing up at a LARPing event to enter the fray holds no appeal to me. Yet for other causes I've shown up in person, and provided aid and assistance to one or both sides.
Practically, here, we have only a handful of sheriff's deputies to help keep the peace, and would not be able to handle an event of the sort Charlottesville just experienced. Our local citizenry is pretty progressive, and even the conservatives tend towards the robust libertarian get-off-my-lawn side of things. We can produce several hundred protesters here for your normal run-of-the-mill causes, out of a population of several thousand, pretty much any day of the week. If a handful of Nazis showed up, we'd likely have thousands of people counter-protesting.
Random neural firings...
I would do my best to go. What i understand was that locals in Charlottesville provided support and aid, also steered the Nazis away from a black neighborhood. That was one local account at least. There was also one really bad beating with no police around so being a witness is really important.
We had a conversation in my meditation group about anger and what is happening. We have transgender members who are feeling very vulnerable and others of us are angry. However action does not need anger. I get tired of having action assumed to come from a negative source. Thereis a lot of caring and protective qualities to showing up.
I'm planning to show up to the event that is supposedly happening here in two weeks as are a bunch of our friends. I don't intend to be right at the front with a stylish shield but I do think that being part of the numbers of people who just show up matters. (kind of like how it apparently matters how many people show up on the mall for the inauguration...)
SO has expressed interest in going, which, I admit, concerns me. I'm not a spring chicken, but I can still sprint a short distance if need be and within the last year did an OJ Simpson from one end of the phoenix airport to the other. (not to get to my Hertz rental car but to get to the gate of my next flight that was leaving in 15 minutes.) SO, on the other hand, is going through a fairly debilitating long-term illness and would not be capable of removing himself from the situation at any speed even vaguely resembling quick if things got ugly. I've tried to gently point that out to him and will continue to do so but ultimately as an adult it's his call what he does.
I would do my best to go. What i understand was that locals in Charlottesville provided support and aid, also steered the Nazis away from a black neighborhood. That was one local account at least. There was also one really bad beating with no police around so being a witness is really important.
We had a conversation in my meditation group about anger and what is happening. We have transgender members who are feeling very vulnerable and others of us are angry. However action does not need anger. I get tired of having action assumed to come from a negative source. Thereis a lot of caring and protective qualities to showing up.
Baldilocks
8-15-17, 10:08pm
No. I wouldn't take a knife to a gun fight and I wouldn't fight a spiritual battle in the flesh. You can't reason with the devil and you can't defeat hate with more hate. I would pray against it and perhaps it would require fasting and prayer. How successful would the rally be if absolutely no one showed up to oppose them. We give them the power when we allow them to make us mad.
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
I'll be going this Saturday to the Commons in Boston. To observe - I don't know enough about protesting to be active, I'll leave it to the folks that do, and hope other folks have the sense to do the same. I might do water runs if it looks like it's needed.
Red Cross has asked we be available in case we are asked to engage, so I'll be signing up for that and bringing my vest with me just in case.
I'm planning to show up to the event that is supposedly happening here in two weeks as are a bunch of our friends.
What's going on down there?
What's going on down there?
http://www.sfexaminer.com/white-supremacist-patriot-rally-coming-san-francisco-counter-protest-already-planned/
http://www.sfexaminer.com/white-supremacist-patriot-rally-coming-san-francisco-counter-protest-already-planned/
Yick.
iris lilies
8-15-17, 11:34pm
No, I wouldn't go to any Nazi event as an observer or a counterprotester. Why should I go now? I haven't gone in the past when they have come to town. Mainstream media has whipped up the citizenry and the media is puffed up with importance about that.
There was no one group more pleased about Michael Brown and subsequent protests than mainstream media here. Our local newspaper had big stories every day during those events and they were able to win a Pulitzer Prize, thrilling for them.
ApatheticNoMore
8-16-17, 1:26am
I'm not sure neo-nazies (and no I'm not going to beat around the bush and call them alt-right but call them what they so clearly are instead) make enough of the population to warrant a counter-protest. Maybe it just draws more attention to them. Of course if I'm wrong (I would not have predicted a Trump victory either, so maybe I'm not so good at such mind reading) and hate marchers and their sympathizers actually ARE a significant portion of the population, then heaven help us all, and we are in trouble regardless of counter-protests.
I'm sympathetic with those who counter-protest, I know they are fine people doing it for the right reasons, I'm just not sure it actually doesn't give some small minority of openly hateful people more attention than otherwise.
ToomuchStuff
8-16-17, 2:35am
Sunday, a group came through putting flyers on everyone's cars, also known as screwing with peoples property and littering. Their signs didn't have any of their contact information for billing (disposal fee's), or questioning their motives or beliefs/views/more information. The flyer said that someone named x was coming to town, under the guise of freedom of religion and had rented a room at x facility, which was crossed out and another facilities name mentioned. The mentioned place is three tenths of a mile from where I work and is a hall that would say if your a wedding, we have these additional services/items you can rent, otherwise here is our room/table/chair rental fees. If your money is green, it is the same money. The flyer had LGBT triggers in it, and they would be protesting that place, if that place discriminated against any of those activities, but the same rules shouldn't apply to a group that they don't agree with, and don't have to attend.
I have no need/reason to attend, but figure it could get nuts around work and leaving, due to this being so close. (traffic and such)
The flyer requests that we contact the venue, and the city council over permits and effectively destroy this business financially.
Now, if this were my Austrian neighbor's father, or my friends German concentration camp grandfather, then I might attend a private function, to discuss the war from their perspective. No different then the Japanese friend, or my neighbor about growing up during and after the war, or a late friend about living through the bombing of GB. History is written by the victors, but often we find out more later on, as things are classified or "not something that others would understand" and later comes out through the perspective of historians.
No I would not. Why give them what they want?
I would not attend. And if I were King of the World I'd ensure a neutral zone be established between the protesters and counter protesters to prevent the type of violent, emotional outbreaks which only serve to feed future protests.
BikingLady
8-16-17, 8:35am
No
Williamsmith
8-16-17, 8:46am
There is only one thing that's a bigger waste of time than neo Nazis and white supremacists protesting. That's counter protesting. They should all be arrested for causing the state to expend unnecessary financial assets and undermining the health, prosperity and common good of society. Hand them picks and shovels for true, "shovel ready" jobs. Work them until they don't feel like protesting anymore. Take down all offensive symbols except those specifically honoring the current federal government. All religious symbols like crosses and images of Jesus need to go because a large segment of our people find them offensive. All National Parks should be cleared of any monuments to past occurrences.
My impulse would be to go just to represent what I hope is the vast majority of the population that strongly disagrees with their poisonous cause. But ignoring them might be a better--and safer--way to show that. Everyone stay at home or otherwise well away from them. Or Alan's plan of a buffer zone might protect the protesters from thugs obviously looking for a fight. "Both sides" --what a crock! Just like there were two equally culpable sides any other time Nazis raised their ugly heads.
I hope however this plays out that good people stand up and fight in whichever way they can so that we don't end up like Germany mid-century. It seems too many looked the other way at the beginning. These things start small.
I am probably just naïve and uninformed about rights of assembly. But I thought we had a right to peaceful assembly. So when the Nazis and KKK show up with guns and pitchforks, or whatever those long sticks were, then to me it is no longer a peaceful assembly. Looking at the photos from Charlottesville, why did the police not shut them down right at the start?
If somebody is throwing something at somebody else, the thrower should get arrested. That is not okay behavior.
I don't understand why mob in C'ville became mob rule.
So I guess I would not counter-protest, if it involved showing up with weapons, including defensive weapons.
I am not trying to do anything here but understand, and was hoping some of you who are LEOs or first responders could explain why people are allowed to come into a public space in a threatening fashion.
If I showed up brandishing sticks on the subway, wouldn't I get arrested?
Why is the public space of a park different?
In C'ville, lots and lots of people intent on mischief descend on the town, and some guy from Ohio kills a woman with his car and injures others. Two state police officers are killed trying to do their job to keep the public safe.
This could happen absolutely anywhere, North, South, East, or West. Harvard was built partially on slaver money--many families in New England got their wealth from the slave trade. So is it okay to go into Boston and act this way, to protest events that occurred in the past?
I am baffled as to why this "rally" was allowed to continue.
Counter-protesting to what? Let's select the options that trigger counter-protests.
If local marijuana growers protest to grow more, I am not interested in counter-protesting.
If a marijuana grower does not have proper ventilation equipment operating and is harming the quality of life for the neighbours (the smell from a large greenhouse without proper filtration ventilation is horrific! think of 100 skunks stinking at the same time on a hot day) triggering a public request for growing standards and protestors showed up to protest their freedom/right etc., to use MJ, would I support the community of friends in the neighbourhood, yes.
This scenario is not just a figment of my imagination. MJ legislation at the federal level permitted growing but legislation on controls and standards are way behind with provincial and municipal gov'ts trying to play catch up. Communities are struggling and illegal activities are ongoing until someone complains and tries to rectify the situation. Complex!
Laws may vary, but I believe it's legal to carry--even brandish--weapons as long as you aren't openly threatening anyone.
I learned this listening to a scanner app...:0!
Laws may vary, but I believe it's legal to carry--even brandish--weapons as long as you aren't openly threatening anyone.
I learned this listening to a scanner app...:0!
But they seem be able to ban whatever they want whenever they decide to. After the marathon bombing here, even backpacks were banned at public events quite frequently.
But they seem be able to ban whatever they want whenever they decide to. After the marathon bombing here, even backpacks were banned at public events quite frequently.
Once a state takes away a citizens ability to defend themselves, not just physically but as a matter of policy, they then have the ability to "ban whatever they want whenever they decide to". I find it odd that people allow that to happen.
Williamsmith
8-16-17, 10:47am
But they seem be able to ban whatever they want whenever they decide to. After the marathon bombing here, even backpacks were banned at public events quite frequently.
Brandishing a weapon, espcially a firearm is a crime in many jurisdictions and you can find yourself in a real pile of poo even if you are defending yourself.
Once a state takes away a citizens ability to defend themselves, not just physically but as a matter of policy, they then have the ability to "ban whatever they want whenever they decide to". I find it odd that people allow that to happen.
It happens here every 4th of July - whole big list of what isn't allowed to the festivities.
Laws may vary, but I believe it's legal to carry--even brandish--weapons as long as you aren't openly threatening anyone.
There is a legal difference between simply carrying a weapon, and brandishing a weapon.
Brandishing is typically a crime.
There is a legal difference between simply carrying a weapon, and brandishing a weapon.
Brandishing is typically a crime.
I've heard of people walking around waving sticks, knives, etc. The question is always "Were they threatening anyone?" I agree they invite observation, if not confrontation, by the police.
No I would not. Why give them what they want?
The president already did give them what they want on Saturday and again yesterday. If he's not going to stand up to them, and why would he since clearly he IS one of them, then someone needs to.
I believe in the non-violent brand of civil disobedience of MLK, Gandhi, Tolstoy, and Mandela. So I would not go with placards and weapons, but if I were brave, I might join a group of people who had peaceful, non-violent means of protesting. If I were really brave I would go and offer hugs to everyone--Nazis, whites, blacks, Jews, Muslims, old, young. But I'm not particularly brave. So I might be more inclined to stay at home, watch it on TV and feel depressed and judgmental.
Teacher Terry
8-16-17, 2:04pm
Like IL I don't think we need to give them any air time or recognition. If everyone ignored them they might find it not worthwhile.
The president already did give them what they want on Saturday and again yesterday. If he's not going to stand up to them, and why would he since clearly he IS one of them, then someone needs to.
Well it is sad to see the white supremacists getting more influence from the political class than any time since the 1924 Democratic convention, but I don't think that's the whole story. Validation from a fellow yahoo is nice, but I think what they really want is a fight to help them build their mythology of struggle and victimization and gain attention. That is a primary goal of identity politics, and I think in many ways you could think of these guys as the original identitarians.
What would happen if only the Nazis showed up? I'm thinking that it might be more of a statement for nobody to go to their gatherings......but protest in other ways (whatever they are).
Most of these guys are just itching for a fight, right? What if nobody accommodated them?
What would happen if only the Nazis showed up? I'm thinking that it might be more of a statement for nobody to go to their gatherings......but protest in other ways (whatever they are).
Most of these guys are just itching for a fight, right? What if nobody accommodated them?
I suspect part of their plan is to get lots of free publicity by marching/demonstrating.
Until recently, if you believe the SPLC, the number of Nazis and KKK members in this country was quite small.
Getting a huge reaction plays right into their hands.
Most of these guys are just itching for a fight, right? What if nobody accommodated them?
If nobody engaged them, most would probably go back to playing HALO 5 full-time.
How many of the protestors initiating the action as white supremacists etc., actually supply $$$$$ to the GOP? How many financial supporters are being alienated with their behaviour? Not intended as a snarky question because in politics it is, at the end of the day, money that talks regardless of which party or in which country. When CEOs are expressing concern, I would think that their Boards of Directors were advised and given opportunity to oppose - lots of $$$ there.
How many of the protestors initiating the action as white supremacists etc., actually supply $$$$$ to the GOP?What does the GOP have to do with it?
What does the GOP have to do with it?
Are the supremacists etc., not recognized as voting Republican in the election? Are not CEOs and Chiefs of Staff members rebuking what the outliers are standing for? This is not a Dem vs Rep question but rather when does an outlier group state that they are of a party, active in and then conduct behaviour that alienates the party's general membership and financial support? When does the $$$fat hit the fan?
No I would not go to an event against something. Someone cried racism in my area a few years ago and there was a rally. Later it turned out she spray painted the slurs on her own house to get sympathy.
However, I might go to a positive event such as The Women's March.
HappyHiker
8-16-17, 7:23pm
I would counter-protest under certain conditions. I hate violence. I would participate in a peaceful demonstration separated by distance from the group (and viewpoints) I'm protesting against.
Especially if the other group were armed to the teeth, and "locked and loaded" and filled with hate. Primed to riot. (If they love this country so much, what are they doing to improve it?)
What's the point of yelling opposing words at a group of protestors whose ears are not going to hear?
This much anger and hatred worries me. I thought it couldn't happen here. How wrong I was. Very, very sad and alarming.
Ultralight
8-16-17, 7:24pm
The Nazis in VA were repeatedly saying how much they love Trump. Remember how he was the GOP candidate for president and got elected? Remember how he is still the Republican president of the USA?
Uh... I would say the GOP is right in the thick of this mess, Alan.
goldensmom
8-16-17, 7:34pm
No. I would not give them the time of day. They are protesting because they have an agenda and no amount of counter protesting will change the agenda. I would not flame their fire and by counter protesting it is giving them undeserved credence. The media coverage is giving them exactly what they want which is attention. Let their fire go out.
The Nazis in VA were repeatedly saying how much they love Trump. Remember how he was the GOP candidate for president and got elected? Remember how he is still the Republican president of the USA?
Uh... I would say the GOP is right in the thick of this mess, Alan.
I think that's a bit of a stretch UL, but whatever. Trump has never been a Republican, this administration is an anomaly
Ultralight
8-16-17, 8:35pm
Trump has never been a Republican...
Uh, dude... your statement is missing a key component: Truth.
Trump is a Republican President. He was on the top of the GOP ticket in 2016. You must remember this, right? You remember when he got nominated at the RNC? The "R" in RNC stands for Republican.
You simply cannot deny the reality that Trump is a Republican President.
I think that's a bit of a stretch UL, but whatever. Trump has never been a Republican, this administration is an anomaly
Regardless of whether he meets your criteria of "Real Republican" the reality is that every other republican politician now has to decide whether to stand with him or stand against him. There are pluses and minuses to both choices and the better politicians will try and find some way to sort of float in between both options and hope that neither side notices that they're being played.
iris lilies
8-16-17, 8:56pm
Uh, dude... your statement is missing a key component: Truth.
Trump is a Republican President. He was on the top of the GOP ticket in 2016. You must remember this, right? You remember when he got nominated at the RNC? The "R" in RNC stands for Republican.
You simply cannot deny the reality that Trump is a Republican President.
I would like to try, though.:)
seriously, it is hard to pinpoint Trump political ideologies. We kind of had to elect him to see what he believed in. But that doesn't even work so well.
Williamsmith
8-16-17, 9:06pm
I would like to try, though.:)
seriously, it is hard to pinpoint Trump political ideologies. We kind of had to elect him to see what he believed in. But that doesn't even work so well.
We had to elect him because HILLARY was the best the democrats could offer. Well, not really, but it was her turn and Bill did promise her he'd do anything to get her elected if she just stood by her man, plus Bernie had already promised to throw the nomination to her before he realized by some miracle his socialist ideology was selling big time, and then Comey threw her under the bus and Putin was driving and ran her over.
Uh, dude... your statement is missing a key component: Truth.
Trump is a Republican President. He was on the top of the GOP ticket in 2016. You must remember this, right? You remember when he got nominated at the RNC? The "R" in RNC stands for Republican.
You simply cannot deny the reality that Trump is a Republican President.
I'll bet you thought Bernie was a Democrat.
I think that's a bit of a stretch UL, but whatever. Trump has never been a Republican, this administration is an anomaly
I won't nold trump against the republicans i have known over the years unless i specifically know they supported him. I have a couple who did, Most of my conservative friends also do not see him as a real republican.
In years past i wiuld have ignored a rally like this, however i am concerned enough about what they are doing that i would be there peacefulky and protectively.
Teacher Terry
8-17-17, 1:15pm
My DH is a Republican but did not vote for him and I am glad. It would have been difficult if he had. Bernie would have made a much better president then either Hillary or the orange one.
I'll bet you thought Bernie was a Democrat.
So was Trump.. until he wasn't.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democrat/index.html
So was Trump.. until he wasn't.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democrat/index.html
That was my point. I think at heart he's an opportunist who's early appeal was that he was neither.
Williamsmith
8-17-17, 3:06pm
My DH is a Republican but did not vote for him and I am glad. It would have been difficult if he had. Bernie would have made a much better president then either Hillary or the orange one.
Bernie should have won the democratic nomination...........Putin was obviously pulling for him.
Regardless of whether he meets your criteria of "Real Republican" the reality is that every other republican politician now has to decide whether to stand with him or stand against him.
Is that really true, or is it just a dramatic pose people like to strike? The president isn't a king you must either swear fealty to or fight to strike down. You might agree with him on immigration but disagree with him on trade, for instance. Why does it need to be such a stark Manichean choice?
iris lilies
8-18-17, 10:00am
Is that really true, or is it just a dramatic pose people like to strike? The president isn't a king you must either swear fealty to or fight to strike down. You might agree with him on immigration but disagree with him on trade, for instance. Why does it need to be such a stark Manichean choice?I thought black and white thinking was the exclusive province of conservatives.At least, we are the ones accused of it.
Is that really true, or is it just a dramatic pose people like to strike? The president isn't a king you must either swear fealty to or fight to strike down. You might agree with him on immigration but disagree with him on trade, for instance. Why does it need to be such a stark Manichean choice?
Then how come pretty much every politician that has spoken out these last few days has been careful to condemn racism and all that but has specifically not said anything about the deplorable in chief's false quivalency 'both sides are at fault' BS?
Then how come pretty much every politician that has spoken out these last few days has been careful to condemn racism and all that but has specifically not said anything about the deplorable in chief's false quivalency 'both sides are at fault' BS?
Because sometimes, like it or not, you have to do business with obnoxious idiots.
While it's true that trump is a big believer in grudges I doubt he'd veto a bill because some of the senators that voted for it called him out as a racist. And that seems to be about the extent of "having to work with trump." It's not as though trump has anything more than the most cursory knowledge or understanding of any of the policy issues that congress might consider, so it's not as though he can contribute anything more meaningful to the "doing business" thing than the scrawl of his signature on whatever bill congress produces.
What's going on down there?
http://www.sfexaminer.com/white-supremacist-patriot-rally-coming-san-francisco-counter-protest-already-planned/
Yick.
A friend just posted on facebook something that seems to be the perfrct response. The protest is planned to be in the presodio because it's federal land and not subject to the city's more restrictive gun laws. The friend's idea is for everyone to go park in every soace in the presidio. The neonazi white nationalists then have the choice of parking in the city and breaking the city's gun laws or gojng home. No confrontation necessary. I'm sure my dad never thought his car would be used to protest white nationalists, but i cant think of a better use for a 15 year old honda...
The protest is planned to be in the presodio because it's federal land and not subject to the city's more restrictive gun laws.
That seems an odd strategy on their part, given that you have to go through city jurisdiction to get to the Presidio.
I took a case in CA to the CA Supreme Court over a quite similar issue many decades ago.
The event in Boston yesterday largely went well. Other than a few yahoos who acted out afterwards, it was peaceful.
They did a great job of separating the rally attendees from the counter-protesters. Maybe too much so for the rally organizers, they terminated their event way before it was supposed to be over.
The event in Boston yesterday largely went well. Other than a few yahoos who acted out afterwards, it was peaceful.
They did a great job of separating the rally attendees from the counter-protesters. Maybe too much so for the rally organizers, they terminated their event way before it was supposed to be over.
I like that. The Neo-Nazis got to vent their hatred and paranoia among themselves, and the counter protesters got to display their show of moral force removed from potential violence. Now there's a "Moral Majority" I can get behind. Well done, Boston!
ApatheticNoMore
8-20-17, 10:20am
some places the rallies are even on different days: one day counter protestors will rally and then the next day the white supremacists will. If we have to have rallies by white supremacists (tell me what did we ever do to deserve this development?), different days makes even more sense. I mean nothing is gained by direct confrontations.
iris lilies
8-20-17, 10:29am
some places the rallies are even on different days: one day counter protestors will rally and then the next day the white supremacists will. If we have to have rallies by white supremacists (tell me what did we ever do to deserve this development?), different days makes even more sense. I mean nothing is gained by direct confrontations.
Shouting down a free speech rally so that the speech doesnt take plsce is, in fact, a "gain" by counter protestors in their eyes.
While I cant get too worked up about a "handful" of Neo Nazis who did not seem to have the audio power to out shout counter protestors*, society loses a tiny bit when voices are not heard even if the voices sprew crank opinions.
*news reports I skimmed agree that a small number of free speech/neo nazis and their sympathizers were out shouted by thousands of counter protestors.
catherine
8-20-17, 10:31am
While I cant get too worked up about a "handful" of Neo Nazis who did not seem to have the audio power to out shout counter protestors*, society loses a tiny bit when voices are not heard even if the voices sprew crank opinions.
Well, you know what they say about democracies: the majority rules. The white supremacists lawfully had their say, but there were fewer of them than the counter-protesters so their voice wasn't heard as loudly. Oh well.
That seems an odd strategy on their part, given that you have to go through city jurisdiction to get to the Presidio.
I took a case in CA to the CA Supreme Court over a quite similar issue many decades ago.
Perhaps they plan to arrive via the golden gate bridfe for just that reason.
Shouting down a free speech rally so that the speech doesnt take plsce is, in fact, a "gain" by counter protestors in their eyes.
While I cant get too worked up about a "handful" of Neo Nazis who did not seem to have the audio power to out shout counter protestors*, society loses a tiny bit when voices are not heard even if the voices sprew crank opinions.
*news reports I skimmed agree that a small number of free speech/neo nazis and their sympathizers were out shouted by thousands of counter protestors.
There is a recent op-ed piece in the NYT taking the ACLU to task for it's traditional absolutist position on free speech. There's a piece
in the Atlantic on "what Europe can teach us about free speech" Austria jailed a Holocaust denier, it's a crime in the Netherlands to sell a copy of Mein Kampf, France outlawed the sale of Nazi paraphernalia on E-Bay. I keep hearing it said that hate speech is violence and we need to rethink the Bill of Rights.
I don't have much of an issue when private citizens decide to exercise a heckler's veto on speech they object to. Although I think ignoring it might be a more effective strategy in the long run. I do have a problem when people want to create institutional controls on what we can say.
Perhaps they plan to arrive via the golden gate bridfe for just that reason.
Seems a rather long way to go, and I'm not sure what precisely they'd hope to accomplish. (Also, though entering from the end drops you right into the Presidio, you still traverse some roads that more than one agency has jurisdiction on. A broken-taillight stop could prove quite troublesome...)
California already has very strict regulations on firearms, and it also has state-level preemption of firearms legislation. (California Government Code § 53071) Generally whenever San Francisco tries to be a trend-setter by passing some "gun control" laws, they get slapped down at taxpayer expense. ( Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, 158 Cal. App. 4th 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) as a recent example. )
So I'm curious what laws SF has that would cause issues for the demonstrators, over-and-above what California already has.
The Presidio case has particular interest to me, as I used to go there several times a month, with firearms and ammunition, to the Army's Wound Ballistics Lab at the Letterman Institute in the Presidio, and had to traverse SF at a time when they were trying to be "clever" with their regulations.
I guess ultimately whether the oarking space idea will have value in thwarting the protestors depends on whether it's legal to walk down the street in san francisco carrying a rifle.
I guess ultimately whether the oarking space idea will have value in thwarting the protestors depends on whether it's legal to walk down the street in san francisco carrying a rifle.
Not generally legal in California within incorporated areas:
http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-26400.html
With exceptions:
http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-26405.html
Has nothing to do with any special laws the City of San Francisco may be trying to implement. I am aware of at least one recent SF gun law that's running through the court system right now, as it, as most of their previous attempts have, seems to violate the state-wide preemption law.
Ultralight
8-20-17, 8:05pm
There is a recent op-ed piece in the NYT taking the ACLU to task for it's traditional absolutist position on free speech. There's a piece
in the Atlantic on "what Europe can teach us about free speech" Austria jailed a Holocaust denier, it's a crime in the Netherlands to sell a copy of Mein Kampf, France outlawed the sale of Nazi paraphernalia on E-Bay. I keep hearing it said that hate speech is violence and we need to rethink the Bill of Rights.
I don't have much of an issue when private citizens decide to exercise a heckler's veto on speech they object to. Although I think ignoring it might be a more effective strategy in the long run. I do have a problem when people want to create institutional controls on what we can say.
"It was a pleasure to burn..." -- 451F
I am a member of the ACLU. I donate to them because I am a die-hard First Amendment supporter. I will be contacting them to tell them that they need to protect free speech and not yield to the book burners!
iris lilies
8-20-17, 8:52pm
Well, you know what they say about democracies: the majority rules. The white supremacists lawfully had their say, but there were fewer of them than the counter-protesters so their voice wasn't heard as loudly. Oh well.
But there is this idea abput tyranny of the majority and rights of minorities. It is a pretty important idea.
Since Freedom of Speech is one of America's basic four freedoms, I couldn't deny anybody their right to it, distasteful though I might find it. But, as others have posted, nothing is achieved with confrontations. I would attend a pro-active event, like a "love-in" at a park, to celebrate inclusion and peace, while the neo-Nazis across town give their speeches to...nobody but themselves. Or a fund-raiser for an anti-racism organization, like the town in Germany that gets people to pledge money for every mile the neo-Nazis march through their town, so the Nazi sympathizers are greeted with delight and people holding up signs thanking them for their contributions to anti-racism causes. But directly engage angry, resentful men carrying weapons? Uh, no thank you.
But there is this idea abput tyranny of the majority and rights of minorities. It is a pretty important idea.
But we seem to be a lot more worried about that when we percieve ourselves the minority. I dont remember Alan getting stressed that the minority that is California cant assert ourselves in presidential elections. But we're only 12% of the population so whi cares what we think.
I dont remember Alan getting stressed that the minority that is California cant assert ourselves in presidential elections. But we're only 12% of the population so whi cares what we think.
Your state legislature could fix your perceived issue in under a week by changing its winner-take-all electoral college policy.
Candidates don't care what California thinks now, because they *know* what California thinks, and they already know where those votes are going. No sense spending any money/effort on a predetermined outcome.
Make it interesting for them!
iris lilies
8-21-17, 2:30am
But we seem to be a lot more worried about that when we percieve ourselves the minority. I dont remember Alan getting stressed that the minority that is California cant assert ourselves in presidential elections. But we're only 12% of the population so whi cares what we think.
Well, sure. I'm not "worried" about a bunch of skinheads failing to get their say in Boston, if they did fail. Probably by marching and holding signs and saying a few words, they did get their say.
Any sustained effort to deny them speech is a problem, and if the government turns its back on protecting their speech, thats a bigger problem. But I am not keen on public resources spent on protecting them either, so finding the balance is important.
But we seem to be a lot more worried about that when we percieve ourselves the minority. I dont remember Alan getting stressed that the minority that is California cant assert ourselves in presidential elections. But we're only 12% of the population so whi cares what we think.
California presented all 55 of their electoral votes (more than any other state) to Mrs. Clinton, just as the majority of it's citizens wished. Why would I be stressed? I have no reason to think California's 12% of the population should control the outcome.
The original idea of federalism was that sovereignty resided with the various states, who would decide which powers would be allocated to the central government. It was never intended that the president be selected by popular vote but rather a consensus of the states. The Electoral College does indeed overweight less populous states somewhat because the founders worried about dominance by more populous regions. But I would think that would not be decisively significant if most or all of the states allocated their electoral votes by their popular vote results. I think Bae is right that there would be more campaigning in California if at least some of the vote was not essentially a foregone conclusion. But that would mean the dominant party would risk losing some national influence. It's hard to see them going the way of Nebraska or Maine.
California could attempt to convince enough other states to allocate that way, or even change the rules entirely to select presidents by popular vote. But it seems unlikely to me that enough of the other states would be willing to cede power to the more highly populated areas. I think it would take less effort for the Democrats to broaden their appeal in flyover country (it wouldn't have taken much in 2016) than to get a constitutional amendment or an agreement among the states to allocate electoral votes differently. Dropping the "bitter clinger" or "basket of deplorables" talk might have been enough to put them over the top in a number of states.
Surely losing to Donald Trump must have been a "teachable moment" for the more thoughtful Democrats.
Alternatively CA could pass a law, and convince enough other states to pass the same law, that sends all of out electors for whoever won the NATIONAL popular vote. If enough states to win the electoral college did this it would make the election a de-facto popular vote.
That seems like a better, and easier, plan than trying to get the Democratic Party to add pro-nationalist, pro-white supremacist, anti-science, anti-Muslim, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and anti-immigrant planks to their platform.
That said, you're right. Pointing out that people are losers is not a winning plan.
That said, you're right. Pointing out that people are losers is not a winning plan.
But it is popular, so please don't tell the Democrats to change their approach. Republicans appreciate you more than you know. ;)
That seems like a better, and easier, plan than trying to get the Democratic Party to add pro-nationalist, pro-white supremacist, anti-science, anti-Muslim, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and anti-immigrant planks to their platform.
I was listening to Chuck Todd on Meet The Press Daily while driving home a week or so ago. He had a Democratic Senator who's name escapes me at the moment on as a guest as they talked about things the Democrats could do to bring more people into the fold. The Senator said they had to craft their message to appeal to more people. Chuck said (and I paraphrase) "do you really want white males in pick-up trucks with gun racks to be Democrats?". The Senator said "of course, we shouldn't discriminate", to which Chuck replied "but do you really, really want white males in pick-up trucks with gun racks in our party?"
I love it when the opposition works with us, especially when they don't mean to. :~)
Alternatively CA could pass a law, and convince enough other states to pass the same law, that sends all of out electors for whoever won the NATIONAL popular vote. If enough states to win the electoral college did this it would make the election a de-facto popular vote.
That seems like a better, and easier, plan than trying to get the Democratic Party to add pro-nationalist, pro-white supremacist, anti-science, anti-Muslim, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and anti-immigrant planks to their platform.
That said, you're right. Pointing out that people are losers is not a winning plan.
While it's a creative approach to the problem (if it in fact is a problem), I doubt your electoral vote cartel would survive very long after the first time its participants were disappointed by the results. I imagine it would play out as a sort of prisoners dilemma. State legislators who voted to assign electoral votes based on a popular vote very much at odds with how their constituents voted would probably be putting themselves at considerable risk. That's probably why it hasn't been tried.
If representing "losers" is just too ignominious to contemplate, the Democrats may need to write off a considerable portion of the voting public as socially unacceptable. Such exclusivity may cost the occasional election, but that may be an acceptable price to pay for identifying as nature's aristocracy.
ApatheticNoMore
8-21-17, 12:31pm
But it is popular, so please don't tell the Democrats to change their approach. Republicans appreciate you more than you know.
Republicans in effect make people into losers all the time, like all those people it tried to take (admittedly very flawed) ACA coverage away from. Why again don't they deserve to have healthcare? Oh right because they are losers. There is just a certain strain that isn't ever going to provide anyone with healthcare either, but that will encourage people to BLAME their bad circumstances on minorities. Which afterall is probably more comfortable than to think than the reason for them is because one is a loser if one buys into the ridiculous winners and losers framing. But for the most part (the exceptions are individually but NOT socially relevant) both views are complete and utter nonsense and can be safely be REJECTED IN TOTAL.
Never EVER should anyone who really wants things to be better accept that anyone is a loser. Now some people may be vicious and dangerous alright, but that isn't the same thing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.