Freedom of Speech Organization

There are millions upon millions of everyday normies out there, people with jobs, people that work hard, people that believe in the American ideal. When these people turn on the news, they're not happy when they see things like Charlottesville. They may sympathize or not, but deep in the back of their minds they're worried, and for good reason. They see that violence against freedom of speech is working, and working well. They see things like James Damore and wonder when the mob is coming for them over some meaningless impolitic statement.

For every single person at Charlottesville, there are 100 people that disagree with the message but are willing to show up and defend their right to say what they want. These people need an organization and visibly recognizable distinction that they are at a place like that, at a time like that, not to agree or disagree with a message, but as in the American ideal, to let those voices be heard, as they are legally entitled to be, permit and all.

This is my proposal: we need an organization dedicated to the physical defense of freedom of speech. The flag in the original post is Forest and Scarlet = FS = Freedom of Speech. The flag is in the 5:9 format used during 17??-1837, the period most overlapping with Edmund Burke's life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke). The black line separating Forest and Scarlet is the thin black line, much like the thin blue line, the meaning of which is: we can never let freedom of speech be infringed in any manner, legal or physical. Wearers of the FS flag are taking a commitment to physically oppose silencing of any speech, whether they agree with the speech or not.

The entire organization's purpose must be only to defend free speech. Defenders of free speech should wear visible FS flags on all sides and wear an “OBSERVER” label. This should be sufficient for corporate HR departments; I can't see any HR department risking court over someone in an organization dedicated to the robust defense of free speech. Moreover, FS members should take both sides where possible and vigorously fight persons attempting to stifle their opponents' free speech.

Please, /pol/, your thoughts?

>>137530109
>>137530163
>>137530214
>>137530265
>>137530293
Uhh, sorry sweetie but your little racist get together promotes violence and will not be tolerated by real, honest Americans. This isn't your blog by the way. Maybe try posting on the dailystormer instead?

>>137530399
Not an argument

File: reddit right now.png (85KB, 291x344px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 291x344px

>>137530447
You're right, it's a statement of fact :)

>>137530542
I'm advocating freedom of speech, and you're arguing against it. Real, honest Americans believe in freedom of speech, I'm one of them.

Also, again, not an argument. Thanks for the bump, though.

>>137530109
Because the most practical defense of free speech is in the courts. Beer bellied WNs with riot shields are great, I'm sure they bought Richard Spencer a few extra minutes of speaking time, but real victories involve writing case law and awarding seven figure damages.

>>137530891
>the most practical defense of free speech is in the courts
That's not what we're seeing right now. Court is by definition post-event, and post-event is not where free speech needs defending. It's during the event, against the enemies of free speech.

>>137530293
bump

>>137530542
Also fuck off shill

It would take a generation of lawyers to make such an organization relevant
Scalia style autism when it comes to the constitution is becoming more popular though it just takes time. But people who only want the freedom of speech to advocating limiting constitutional freedoms are self defeating

>>137532544
>It would take a generation of lawyers to make such an organization relevant
It could literally take overnight. All you need is people working together for a common goal: freedom of speech, in a physical, not legal, sense.

>Scalia style autism when it comes to the constitution is becoming more popular though it just takes time. But people who only want the freedom of speech to advocating limiting constitutional freedoms are self defeating
How so? Freedom of speech should be protected even against people who advocate against it. At least at this point in our juncture. What is wrong with advocating physically for freedom of speech, independent of said speech?

nobody fucking cares about freedom of speech anymore. everybody thinks the solution to their problems is to silence, attack, and/or kill everyone they disagree with. if you're not willing to be a zealot about your ideology, people here will call you a communist jew cuck, and the left will call you a privileged nazi-enabler. they can't get it through their thick fucking skulls that doing this shit sets precedence for a never ending cycle of violence, an eternal hatfields and mccoys feud of violence justified as retaliation and justice. the powers that be will never be on your side forever, and when they're not, you'll regret it. liberals whined about bush, praised obama when he did the same shit, and vice versa for conservatives.

i have no faith in humanity defending any kind of principle anymore, people are thirsty for blood and vengeance against those they call enemies because they voted for someone else, even though they are neighbors. i want to fucking kill myself. i won't, and i can't because i still have a sliver of hope left but it keeps getting squandered. the world is unsalvageable.

>>137530109

Realistically, in the modern age, the 1st Amendment should be expanded to protect those who utilize it from losing their jobs and protect people from silencing tactics. Overall, it should be amended to protect everyone's free speech, yes even the retarded babbling of the left, from being silenced or thrown into poverty just because you don't think like the collective.

>>137533718
>>137533718
Exactly, there should be organization against this silencing and attacking. The thing is, nobody can really take an explicit position against free speech, so why not organize a group specifically for the purpose of the **physical** defense of free speech.

There are a bunch of cuck lawyer faggots that exist to drain money from people's pockets that will pay lip service to free speech, but I don't see them showing up and defending it when it's threatened.

>>137533718
Politics has gotten silly now. Common sense seems to be a very rare thing amongst anyone now.

>>137533906
I agree, perhaps this hypothetical organization should take that position. Things that are lawful citizen conduct should be free from economic persecution much more than they are.

>>137533718
That's because communist/ Jews are anti free speech

>>137534145

Well, all I can really say is to reach out to your local representative. I mean, realistically, if they disagree with the idea that people should, economically, be protected then they are just as much for the idea of people losing jobs just for having an opinion. This, in general, should be a big no-no. It's too bad that the founding fathers didn't think so much ahead on the future possibility of the government utilizing citizens to quell dissidence.

>>137534315
Thing is, they won't explicitly say so, in part because they depend on technicalities-- in particular that their free speech (used to silence others' speech) is technically legal.

They cannot realistically condemn a pure organization to defend free speech, and "OBSERVERS" that will help physically enforce the right to express it.

>>137534315
stop falling for the commie meme. there aren't even enough actual commies to infiltrate the government in the first place. they're neoliberals.

>>137534469
For the most part, I agree with you. I'm certain you could envision the existence of an organization like I mentioned, and said organization could certainly grade candidates for office, up to and including direct mail/media/advocacy/etc, as you need to put some kind of teeth behind it all.

>>137534689
Since when have communists ever been pro-free speech? As in, please cite a single instance of communism in practice that had a robust and lively freedom of speech.

>>137530109
This is a good idea, and I'll support your organization, but keep in mind the Jewish organizations are going to be against it.
My advice is to draw a line between abusing customers as an exercise of free speech and resistance of clients. With this, you could argue that, for instance, bake the cake is pro-bakers, since they aren't accepting customers period, whereas, for example, the Discord banning of Alt Right is not justified because those people were already accepted as customers, and betraying them is when free speech is violated.

>>137530109
the ACLU is actually the far-rights (if thats even a thing) biggest ally. it gets a lot of heat because of how its been used, but thats like being mad at the DMV because they give licences to blacks. they regularly defend what are considered right-wing causes, its just that leftwing people are smart enough to employ their services more and their name is mud in rightwing circles. they are the ones who pushed the federal judge to grant the permit for the university tiki rally the other night. you guys should use them instead of ragging on them all the time, theyre not against you theyre against government overreach on civil liberties issues. wish we had an ACLU over here.

>>137534827

Unfortunately, this will likely never happen even if there is overwhelming want for such an organization. People are perfectly fine, for some weird reason, with the current state of affairs and I wouldn't be surprised if the wanna-be commies get off at silencing and threatening the lively-hood of people they don't agree with.

Because, even if such an organization was founded, you would have problems with biased assistance, like the current ACLU. I mean, look at how the ACLU is trying to protect Milo and a LITERAL SHIT TON of people are commenting on how he doesn't deserve free speech and threatening ACLU of pulling donations for defending Milo's free speech.

>>137535321
I don't see a need to draw any kind of lines. People should have the freedom to speak their minds, and other people shouldn't have the right to use violence (or threats of violence) to shut them down in the act.
None of cakes, customer issues, or Discord is violence or a threat of violence.

>>137530891
>if you want to defeat the jew, you must learn to think like the jew
deny him his shekels and he will suffocate

With jews, you lose.

>>137535612
>Unfortunately, this will likely never happen even if there is overwhelming want for such an organization
It could happen right now. No reason it can't.

>People are perfectly fine, for some weird reason, with the current state of affairs
I really don't think they are. I'm not. Are you?

>even if such an organization was founded, you would have problems with biased assistance
Would it? Why?

>ACLU, Milo, pulling donations, etc
Who cares?

>>137535723
Why do you think there are Craigslist ads for rioters? Professional agitators? Because they know they need a physical presence. Freedom of Speech also needs a physical presence as a counterbalance against this type of fuckery.

>>137535896

>It could happen right now. No reason it can't.
This might be true, but the ACLU is as close to such an organization as you will get. Getting overwhelming support for an organization that has unbiased views on free speech is close to impossible while the current political climate.

>I really don't think they are. I'm not. Are you?
Obviously I am not for the current state of affairs by the inclusion of "for some weird reason" in my sentence. They might not truly voice that they aren't for the current state of affairs, but they have no problem forcing silence from the opposition through any means necessary, some even expressing joy in the idea. Does "punch a Nazi" come to mind? The idea behind an amendment change or an organization with more legal power than the ACLU will not be supported in the majority's eyes and only people who are true constitution supporters would realistically get behind it.

>Would it? Why?
An organization needs funding to even work, even non-profit organizations. No one is willing to work for free. If you want it to be for-profit, some people would argue the idea of charging people to fight for their rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights as "evil". Either way, you are fucked because a non-profit could easily be destroyed through a protest against donating to such an org through demonizing tactics "they are actually secret Nazis/Commies/Anarchists, etc.".

>Who cares?
If you don't care about the current state of affair of leftist non-support for ACLU through donations being pulled because they are fighting for free speech, something is up. It can be just as easy to quote the idea behind an organization actually fighting for all economic rights protection while acting under freedom of speech as "who cares.". Such a comment comes across with the expressed idea that one actually doesn't care for FREE SPEECH and merely wants the 'free speech' that the left cries for from other countries.

There's an off called FIRE that defends free speech in universities. We need something like that for the general public.
https://www.thefire.org

>>137537378
YES

THIS, thanks anon.

>>137530109
I agree one hundred percent, freedom of speech is being revoked for anything they deem unfit, doesn't fit their narrative and is the vague category of 'hate speech'.

Be sure to contribute to and support threads you view and deem worthwhile. /pol/ is being full on invaded and flooded with slide threads.

>>137537319
I don't think you need overwhelming support, just support. I don't even think you need to totally be unbiased. I don't think the ACLU is really relevant here because I'm talking about physically preventing threats to free speech, not adjudicating things.

Of course organizations need funding, but I don't think you necessarily need to pay people all of the time. In fact, I think that's when things really start to go sideways. Also, I don't care what "some people" think. The idea is to have an organization whose stated ideals and behavior on the ground is consistent. Are things ever perfect? Of course not.

I feel that you're trying to trip everyone up with excessively legalistic readings of things when normal readings would do. You may also be trying to poison things with hypotheticals. Instead of arguing negatives, as you have been, why don't you tell us all what you'd like to see, in very explicit, simple, and easy-to-understand terms?

>>137530109
Ok. I'll bite. What happens when a bunch of puerto ricans want to use our symbolism to advance their agenda you kike? They have american citizenship and after all.

>>137538382
No problem. Anyone should be able to say whatever the fuck they want without being silenced by violence.

>>137538474
I won't be at your rally and I won't be associated with your symbolism. How about we come up with a flag the implicitly represents white americans. No nazi or confederate shit.

>>137538170

"Just support" is not enough for an organization that will be fighting legal battles of this magnitude, especially if there is physical prevention. Keep in mind, it is already illegal to physically prevent free speech, aka lay your hands on another person. The only reason protesters get away with anti-free speech tactics is through annoying as fuck whistles and other annoying crap which also falls under free speech in a way so realistically the government can't do anything. You have the right to stand there and blow a whistle just as much as I have the right to stand there and blow a megaphone up until the point that it falls under the statue of noise pollution. Once you get into physical enforcement of the protection of free speech, you start to scare not only extremists, but also mundane people with fear of being called out as impeding one's right to speak. You have to realize that people who are on the extremist ends of both points of the political spectrum usually don't have a problem with lying. Hell, you might even find normal people abusing such a system in the long run.

To answer your question about what I would like, I believe that everyone has a right to their own voice. It shouldn't be okay to try to silence anyone through any means whether it be yelling over them, whistling, megaphones, amps, losing a job through massive HR reporting, etc. It's absolutely insane that even teachers believe that such tactics are "okay". Everyone should be allowed to express their views, no matter how extremist so long as they aren't directly calling for bloodshed. You cannot have political commentary if one side is hushed, at that point it's not even politics and is instead just people agreeing while circle jerking over a topic. As much as I would love to converse about my opinions and ideals with other people, I cannot do so without jeopardizing my job, my own health or even the health of family members due to free speech not blanketing me from other people.

>>137539324
>How about we come up with a flag the implicitly represents white americans
I'm against freedom of speech in its ideal and originally intended form.

t. bot shill

>>137539485
So you agree that at a bare minimum that physical violence or threats of violence against unpopular speech is a bad thing? I'm talking bare minimums here, not

>It shouldn't be okay to try to silence anyone through any means whether it be yelling over them, whistling

That shit sounds like some New Yorker article against catcalling women or something (which is, like it or not, free speech as well).

Baiting has become more appealing than arguing
Sad!

>>137530109
>seeks to physically defend free speech, no matter what the form, while not taking a position on the content of such speech? I'm not talking about legal defense, I'm talking about practical defense, boots on the ground.

Oh so you'll physically defend Colin Kaepernick? That's what I thought, bitch ass shill

File: 1502146499915.jpg (43KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 604x604px

bump and throw in vote for the name being Patriots United or some cliche shit

>>137539942
What do you mean by 'baiting'? I ask this because baiting is often a legitimate form of argumentation, one frequently used here to good effect.

>>137539851

Do you honestly think that if I am against people purposely using free speech to silence other people's free speech that I would be for physical violence or threats of violence against free speech?

The way I see it, we have two options.
1. Get some of the few not-poor/not-student anons to throw their life on the line, or fund some of the poor anons, to set up a new ACLU equivalent that's less biased. Due to anonymity, this is difficult.
2. Start sending our guys to the ACLU. Just join the enemy get some conservative voices inside, although this is unlikely to help too much because muh jews probably own the upper management and might just flush us out.

>>137540022
>physically defend Colin Kaepernick
Sure, if he's kneeling in a parking lot somewhere during someone's anthem and people want to use violence to stop him. Defend him from the popularity consequences from his speech in the NFL? No way. Colin Kaepernick should be allowed to express himself without threats, just like anyone else should be.

>>137540118
Dunno, why don't you state your opinions in a much clearer way? Perhaps if everyone is continually misunderstanding you, the fault may lie with you? You seem like a bit of a faggot.

>>137540496

I don't even know how I can state something in a clearer way. I've tried conversing with you politely, but it seems you are unable to do so. I might seem like a bit of a faggot to you, but you seem much like a child to me. You know they teach reading comprehension in Elementary School, right? It doesn't take a genius to understand some one's stances on something if they have already provided some contextual understand on where they stand in general, especially if the understanding the provided falls under the same affect.

No one, except for you, has shown any sign of misunderstanding in the thoughts and ideas that I am projecting.

>>137541013
Let's take your previous statement:
>Do you honestly think that if I am against people purposely using free speech to silence other people's free speech that I would be for physical violence or threats of violence against free speech?
Maybe, because you're against free speech apparently. The ability to use free speech to attempt to silence other people's free speech is a valid use of free speech. The use of violence or threats of violence is not valid.

So if you are against "free speech" when it (((silences others))) then you do not believe in free speech, because to prevent (((silencing others))) you would have to use violence or threats of violence to quell it. This is why you seem like a bit of a faggot.

>>137540087
Was referring to the guy trolling abput MUH RACISM and MUH TRUE AMERICANS

>>137542343
Ah, that was a shill. They really haven't decided to go all in on this thread because they'd be scared to death if a bunch of normies decided to become free speech defenders; it blows a huge hole through their usual attack patterns.

Just joining the conversation.

What you should do is start a rally, just as a start and proof of concept of sort, that is family friendly, and explicitly condone violence, and to foster a casual atmosphere to discuss on whatever you are discussing right now. You need to lead by example, to show how a proper peaceful, dialogue-driven rally is done, you need to meme in the name of free speech, anti-violence, and pro-dialogue, and to call out anyone from all sides when they fail, e.g. Google, Antifa, Alt-Right, they all failed the free speech test at some point and you need to make a new format, a new meta for the rallies going forward. That is why and how it should be done, if it is to be done. A rally focusing on the meta-platform of free speech, and dialogue driven.

Other issues such as anti-doxx, permits, police, optics, logistics, are easy once you have the moral basis and the purpose of the rally. It is a simple rally, and your message is free speech, and your format is peaceful gathering and dialogue driven.

Obviously Antifa will bring violence to the rally but as long as you have a focus, a theme, a format, the police will know how to do their job. Barring politicians pulling strings like Charlottesville, but that is another issue, for another rally, of another ideology, of another format, in another place, entirely.

>>137541606

Nice to see that you have actually decided to come out of your shell. It's good to see another shit head who believes it's okay to silence other people, as long as I am using my voice to do so. Also, for your intricate lack of knowledge, directly threatening some one over their freedom of speech is already illegal if you target them. The only time freedom of speech has been knowingly stripped from another human, while being allowed to do so, is through the same freedom of speech argument of "b-b-but it only says the government can't silence people so I'll do it for them". I mean, why should anyone have a voice? Why not have everyone shout down to and drown out even the most innocent of debate? Let's just make a device that everyone wears and if you even try to speak it just makes a loud shrill noise.

In the end, even if you feel even one way of silencing some one else is okay, you are just revealing how much a hypocrite you are. You can't have freedom of speech and then just strip it from other people cause "muh freedom of speech lets me overthrow your freedom of speech". That's some Preschooler grade shit. That's not even realistically freedom of speech, that's controlling another's ability of speech which, by all accounts, is as far from 'freedom' as can be.

This thought process has no place in any society that wants to bring any diversity of thought and is more akin to a bunch of retards sitting in a circle banging on pots and pans cause "muh feels". I don't have a problem if you enjoy doing so, just go do it else where instead of where adults are trying to politely talk and discuss.

Also, no, you don't have to use violence to enforce overall free speech. It's called being a decent human being. Something that a majority of people, you included, have forgotten how to do.

>>137543453
I appreciate the response, but I think "dialogue driven" is a bit of a newspeak diversity codeword.

>Obviously Antifa will bring violence to the rally but as long as you have a focus, a theme, a format, the police will know how to do their job
This is demonstrably false, and part of the reason this discussion was launched in the first place. There is a need for a robust free speech defense, particularly for speech that is non-PC, non-dialogue driven, and at odds with corporate sensibilities.

>>137543552
Thread regarding nearly absolute freedom of speech
>shit head who believes it's okay to silence other people
Argued simply without need for rhetorical fuckery
>your intricate lack of knowledge
>I mean, why should anyone have a voice?
Argue for nearly absolute freedom of speech and freedom from violence or threats of violence
>You can't have freedom of speech and then just strip it from other people cause "muh freedom of speech lets me overthrow your freedom of speech"
(speech never "overthrows" someone else's speech, but violence does)
>This thought process has no place in any society
According to you. According to me, it does. And I have freedom of speech, so go fuck yourself.
>Also, no, you don't have to use violence to enforce overall free speech
Actually, you do. Throughout history, the default has been unfree speech. If anything, history has shown us that state violence (incarceration, etc) has been absolutely necessary to support free speech. To argue otherwise is simply retarded.

>>137543843
>Free speech defense

That is exactly what you are focusing wrongly onto. Violence is not the issue here because it is universally condemned, and the police is more than enough to suppress it, see Boston Common rally. What is at stake here, is the format of rallies. There is a prevailing meme, driven by the left, activated by Antifa, that there is a uprising gang-war, between supposedly some good guys and bad guys. That is nothing more than a meme, an excuse for violence to take over the format of rallies on a meta level. What you are supposed to do, being the only meta rally, is to completely reverse this meme and bring back the peaceful, well-policed, comfy rally that we all know and love and experienced at Boston Common.

Antifa is just a stale meme once you see through its true purpose in the current political landscape. A tool of injecting violence into rallies, as a mechanism against free speech. Your job is to not to engage in the gang-war, but to bring back the rally format, that works, and sells. Bring back Boston Common. Save the rallies, save free speech.

>>137544494
OH MY GOD
DID YOU HEAR THOSE SOUND WAVES
THEY EXPRESSED CONCEPTS THAT THREATENED MY EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>137530109
this>>137543453
>the way to get this done is to have the rally in new jersey
>antifa thinks it is bulletproof
>antifa is a terrorist organization in new jersey
>i'm confident gov christie would support a peaceful free speech rally
>if antifa doesn't show you have made your point about peaceful assembly
>if antifa shows up with clubs, balloons full of urine, etc., and thinks they can get away with it as they have in other blue states, they can be arrested and charged with terrorism there and people will see who is causing rallies to descend into chaos

>>137544635
>Violence is not the issue here
Battle of Berkeley, San Jose & Chicago (during campaign), UCLA & Milo, fuck even Bill Maher on campus at some place, the list goes on and on.

All of these are literally violence and the threat of violence to shut down freedom of speech. There is certainly a need for, in my view, a force for nearly absolute freedom of speech AT THE PHYSICAL LEVEL, not at the court or adjudication level. Simply people that are willing to wear freedom of speech colors and show up, acting as a buffer to violence from any side.

What is wrong with this?

>>137530109
>>137545071
>also, i would suggest including young people, make it family friendly, so if antifa shows up, nj police are going to more quickly crack down on them

>>137545284
>police have been demonstrated to stand down and let violence rage
>political violence rages
>BRING YO KIDS
I get what you're saying, but there needs to be a physical-level non-cucked ACLU for physical events that does not rely on politicized police or local/state government. Perhaps an organization of free speech zealots that are willing to physically fight to guarantee free speech rights are usable IN PRACTICE, NOT JUST IN THEORY.

>>137544494

I don't believe you live in the United States, do you happen to be using Tunneling Software? Everyone, with even the slight bit of intelligence, knows that it is illegal to threaten some one on ANY grounds. If daddy said that he is going to touch your no-no place because you're a fascist, you might want to record him saying that and report it to the police. Though, I'm glad to see that you are unable of any profound thought except for the very, unrealistic, idea that "free speech can only be stopped through violence". Actually, no, free speech is commonly stopped, beginning with selective conditioning on what should be allowed and not allowed. People are then taught that, should people start to bring forth an idea that you disagree with, shout them down and displace them from the majority. You can't make a law supporting violence again freedom of speech in the US without having a majority of people, the majority of the house, senate and the supreme court agreeing that not all free speech is okay. Screaming over another's attempt of speech, consistently and throughout the cause till the other person finally thinks "fuck it" and leaves is akin to censorship. You argue much like the hard left leaning idiots that I deal with at work all day who, when I try to have a meaningful conversation with them, continue to shout about how I'm evil and their feelings are hurt. Then, when I ask them if they are going to be civil, they cry out. Also, no, according to many profound individuals throughout history, knowingly censoring another culls the idea of diversity. I mean, look at fucking Colleges you idiot. It's literally a cesspool of "neo-liberal" ideas and what little conservatism is there is instantly shouted out by the left to silence. Everyone knows that you cannot control the people unless you get a overwhelming majority of them to agree on something. It's called human nature, you should probably look into it.

>>137545140
Physical security against criminals (i.e. Antifa) should be provided by the police, rather than trying to win the gang-fight. Your objective is to revitalize the peaceful rally format, to play the gang-war means playing right into what Antifa is created to make you do. The gang-war is what is destroying rallies, as a format of free speech.

When the police don't do their jobs, obviously you will have to take care of that yourself i.e. gang-war. But that just means you deviate from your objective. Recognize, that when police is not doing their jobs, it is always because someone is pulling the strings so that Antifa can do their job, both being on the same side on the chess board. When that happens, you, and I mean you exactly, being the ONLY peaceful rally out there for the purpose of reviving the comfy rally format, should not take part. Violent rallies is not something you do, and not battles you should fight. You have better rallies to do, ones that are well-coordinated with police, ones that are comfy, SO THAT you can condone the violence, of OTHER rallies.

Your role, is not rally-security. Your role, is comfy rally organizer. Know your place, know your objective, and pick your battles.

>>137545863
Fuck off faggot shill

>>137545984

Typical... You call me a shill when I am expressing ideas for something that "shills" don't even believe in. The majority of shills like to point out that 'hate speech', something that I said it okay, is bad and should be culled. Yet, I wouldn't expect some one with the intelligence of a neo-liberal to understand that people can believe and even want other human beings to be rational, kind and allowed to express even the most profound of ideas. Keep throwing around those labels though, maybe one will stick eventually.

Keep putting up the good fight. Maybe one day, you too will be able to censor some one with your free speech.

>>137545969
>Physical security against criminals (i.e. Antifa) should be provided by the police
"should" does not equal "does".
>Your objective is to revitalize the peaceful rally format
It is not. My objective is to make freedom of speech usable IN PRACTICE without resorting to post-event adjudication/courts.
>Violent rallies is not something you do
On the contrary, violent rallies are the most important, because they are the ones where free speech is the most at risk. We need uncucked Americans (not Brit faggots like you who don't even have free speech rights of your own, else the gub'mint come take you away [which is violence]) to ensure that people at the most risk of violence for unpopular speech retain their rights.

>>137546366
>Maybe one day, you too will be able to censor some one with your free speech.
One man's free speech cannot censor another man's free speech. Rather, one man's violence or threats of violence can censor another man's free speech.

You can continue weaving words around but you cannot refute this very simple central point.

>>137545587
>i appreciate what you are saying
>aclu backed unite the right's right, so did the courts
>they will be suing with kessler
>hit them in the pocketbook is the only way to stop them
>also doj is looking into "many sides" in spite of the watered down version to keep the peace
>starting an additional organization is a great idea
>the problem is, like other things i mentioned, it takes time
>antifa is an immediate problem
>msm's love affair with them is souring after couric's producers were doused with piss at cville and next day nbc cameraman was clubbed (with camera rolling) and had to be hospitalized
>yesterday, cnn (yes, cnn) came out with the first story that brought to the attention of their readers the violence they bring
>even quoted someone saying they were worse than right wing could ever be
here's what i see
>the tide is shifted, they think they're bulletproof, they will get worse
>nj will offer the best protection from them at a rally, literally the only state that considers them a terrorist organizatioon
>nj police and responsible adults aren't going to let families get beaten at a peacefully rally
>who would look worse, antifa if they pushed the issue and 5-0 stood down, or nj if they stood down and let that happen
>answer is obvious, so antifa would be rounded up for every little thing, rather than things getting out of hand, and charged with terrorism
long term
>your idea is good, but it won't get traction any quicker than aclu lawsuit v cville or any quicker than doj/fbi looking into it
>and that's with at least one of the three being arrested publicly acknowledging himself as antifa
>but watch to see how long it takes for justice
>what you are envisioning would be long lasting, but also painstakingly slow in getting traction
>forcing antifa into a trap like cville's mayor did to unite the right would be much quicker solution to change the narrative
>if the narrative isn't changed soon, you may not have enough time to implement your idea

>>137546603

I'm sorry, I can't quite hear you over the sound of your reeeeeeing and your objective lack of understanding on how law works. Though, keep trying, maybe you will be able to convince some one that violence is some how okay all of a sudden.

Also, yes, free speech can be utilized as a form of censorship of another person's free speech. Try walking into a mall and telling a group of women how you believe men should have equal reproductive rights. I can guarantee that either A, they let you speak or B, will shout you down and throw labels at you until you go away. Though, I understand that the concept of speech being utilize to silence other speech is hard to understand.

>>137546377
You seem to be hell bent on creating some sort of gang. You think you can "fight off" Antifa and have your free speech back. No you won't. That is just going to create more gang-fight which is exactly what Antifa is designed to do. You will never have your rally back if you go down the path of the Antifa gang fight.

You completely ignored the bigger picture and only wants to play gangster. Go on, start some alternatives of death squad, and watch your rallies go straight into the gutter.

Meanwhile, the ones who want to bring back the peaceful rally should do just that.

>Brit
Not going to reply to your irrelevant name calling. You are using Antifa tactics.

>>137530109
you really have to ask? its because its constitutional you fucking foreigner.

>>137547035
>hit them in the pocketbook is the only way to stop them
No, you can physically stop them
>your idea is good, but it won't get traction any quicker than lawsuit
It may or may not, but that isn't for you to determine
>what you are envisioning would be long lasting
Yes
>but also painstakingly slow in getting traction
Not necessarily
>forcing antifa into a trap
I don't care about antifa except that they shouldn't be allowed to censor others' speech
>if the narrative isn't changed soon, you may not have enough time to implement your idea
I don't care about narratives, I care about principles

why did you butcher my flag

>>137547261
hi bot

>>137547421

>I don't care about antifa except that they shouldn't be allowed to censor others' speech
Holy fuck the irony is almost palpable.

>>137547438
I knew this would happen. However, just look at any flag thread here. All are swords, eagles, confederate, swastika, etc, which are understandable in that this is /pol/, but are complete normie repellent.

There needs to be a clear way to signal "I may or may not agree with what you have to say, and I'm not going on the record which one it is, but I'm here to safeguard your right to free speech."

>>137547454
I dont know what the fuck you think your doing but the reason people dont worry about it is because its a constitutional right that no real american thinks should be squashed. the second amendment now thats a different story and requires a lot of pull for some reason even though its the 2ND! amendment you know the last one before they take free speech away.

>>137547695
free speech rallies were it but they fucked that off for some reason.

>>137547552
>Holy fuck the irony is almost palpable
Please explain. How is preventing any party from violently suppressing another party's speech ironic in any way?

>>137530109
>>137547035
>maybe i didn't understand you 100%
>being like antifa isn't the solution
>that just makes it worse
>thugs vs thugs won't allow for more free speech, it will have a detrimental effect as govt tries to curtail it
>supreme court already ruled in free speech victory this year
>we need to use the system if we want free speech
>anarchist solutions won't help, that's exactly the opposite
>trapping antifa would be much better
>change the narrative
>if you want protective groups, there are bikers and such that will help now, but that doesn't help
>pr is important here
>we're also fighting msm
>antifa is too full of themselves to stop and msm is starting to waiver in support of them
>beat them at their own game
>if you simply turn thug vs. thug, you only make it worse as long as msm is on their side
>work to change the narrative
>it's already starting
>trap them, that's all that needs to be done
>i want a country where my kids can feel safe going to a free speech rally
>thugs vs. thugs doesn't help that
>defeating antifa in the court of public opinion so mayors and governors have to stop them is a solution
>new jersey
>antifa=terrorists

>>137547861
>not talking about them having the right to speak
>talking about them violently keeping others from it
jesus fucking christ, i thought you had something helpful to add, you just want an excuse to be a thug, too

>>137547227
>ou seem to be hell bent on creating some sort of gang
No, the Subject is "Free Speech Organization". I'm hell-bent on creating an organization, completely law-abiding, not some kind of degenerate criminal scum gang.

>You think you can "fight off" Antifa and have your free speech back. No you won't
Nobody can take my free speech rights, you, antifa, or the fucking devil himself.

>You completely ignored the bigger picture and only wants to play gangster.
Quite the opposite, the entire purpose is the bigger picture. The biggest picture is: it is immoral to allow the violent to suppress the free speech rights of the non-violent. Is that something you disagree with?

>>137548096
are you a stupid person? do you thnk people at free speech rallies are against allowing people to be heard?

>>137547861

I'm just finding it hard to understand what you want at this point. You have shifted left and right every time some one brings up that your idea, while good on paper, is shit in real life. So you want a group that instills fear in people who might seek violence through either word of mouth or action? Essentially, you want to get rid of violence through the threat of returning violence. Not seeking through court of law, which will not only cause some one to serve time, but can also be sued for any damages. Considering the fact that Antifa was literally this kind of group when they first appeared, not the current incarnation of Antifa, is why I am saying it's ironic.

>>137548096
That is my conclusion too, OP is a goner, he just wants to fight someone under the name of free speech. He does not understand he is contributing to the problem and undermining free speech.

OP is someone who we should be reporting to the police for inciting violence, much like what Antifa is doing.

>>137548096
Good shilling.

>not talking about them having the right to speak
That's literally the only topic.

>talking about them violently keeping others from it
That's literally the opposite of the entire discussion.

Again, do you believe that people should have to forfeit their freedom of speech because others are prepared to use violence or threats of violence towards them? I don't. In an ideal world, police and government would prevent it, but my point here is that the free citizens of the USA can and should also prevent it.

>>137548285

I don't think you understood the other person calling out OP for wanting an excuse to be a thug. No one has argued that people at free speech rallies tend to want people to be heard. The difference is OP is pretty much calling for another form of Antifa that will likely spiral out of control like the current incarnation of Antifa.

>>137548295
>I'm just finding it hard to understand what you want at this point
Very simple. I see a problem. Many people are unable to exercise their free speech rights because of violence or threats of violence from parties opposed to their speech. I believe there is ample space for an organization dedicated to protecting the PHYSICAL expression of speech. There are many organizations dedicated to the legal protection of speech, but none of them show up when a bunch of assholes show up and start punching people.

If (for example) people show up with the aim of punching people to suppress free speech rights, there should be a group ready to punch back on behalf of the people with unpopular ideas.

Violence and threats of violence should not be used to suppress speech. I've come to believe that the de facto suppression of free speech by violent people (who often are losers with nothing to lose) is one of the most insidious forms of degeneracy and must be stopped at all costs.

>>137548437
>but my point here is that the free citizens of the USA can and should also prevent it.

By not going to violent rallies, by not taking part in the violence, and by creating peaceful ones.

You should not be organizing rallies, because your rallies will just gang-fights that will undermine free speech by deteriorating the rally as a format.

Those who truly want to bring back free speech, knows Antifa (i.e. violence) has to be sidelined.

>>137548470
thats true I feel that both sides of this alt coin are full of shit. This is no doubt being set up. comes out of nowhere after trump is elected, democrates start calling for violence in the streets literally spread on tv throughout the nation. the attempted assassination of repubs at the softball game. all of a sudden antifa and then right on que some oposition called alt0right becomes a group right at the perfect time. I dont fall for any of it. its all fucking bullshit.

>>137548321

I think at this point it's reasonable to assume that the OP is actually the shill that he keeps, incorrectly, labeling other people. Likely, he wanted everyone on /pol/ to be like "YEAH LET'S THREATEN VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE, NOT LEGAL ACTION" so that MSM can point at /pol/ and be like "SEE THEY ARE NAZIS AND SUPPORT VIOLENCE!". He's no better than the groups that he claims to have the aims of protecting free speech again. Especially when he argues that it's okay to censor another person, so long as violence isn't used.

>>137549024

While I do agree with you on a majority of points, especially with the whole violence against the right "good night alt-right, my grandfather killed nazis and now they are on our shore, etc.", I do want to go on the record with saying that Antifa wasn't so bad in the beginning. I actually, a while ago, had a run in with Antifa that wasn't so bad and didn't have any violence behind it. It has only been when the majority of middle left to extreme left has called for violence that suddenly Antifa is becoming a problem.

In all, there is no point in creating a right leaning or even centrist leaning group that will just become the next Antifa and give the left more fire power for their anti-right/centrist ideas. We can only hope that one day, man kind will realize how stupid it has been and look past the absolute censorship of any ideas that is not agreed upon.

FUCK YOU RACIST FASCIST DRUMPFTARD NAZIS FUCKS!
YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE A VOICE YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE FREE SPEECH
YOU WILL DIE
WE
WILL
KILL
ALL
OF
YOU
DIEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>137549006
>>137549006
>By not going to violent rallies, by not taking part in the violence, and by creating peaceful ones.
Violence is a one-party issue. A rally that is violent is decided by one side, the side willing to first engage in violence. There is no way for an unpopular party to create a peaceful rally, because it's not up to them. They can be peaceful, but if the other side shows up and starts acting violently, then all of a sudden it's a (((violent rally))).

>rallies will just gang-fights that will undermine free speech
How is that any different than what we've just seen?

>Those who truly want to bring back free speech, knows Antifa (i.e. violence) has to be sidelined.
No, they don't need to be sidelined. They need to cease acting violently, or at the very minimum, be met with an equal and opposite opposing violent force so it all cancels out and free speech again reigns supreme.

Ideally, police would perform this task, but we've all seen how that has turned out lately.

>>137549426
>Democrat flag
>YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE A VOICE
>YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE FREE SPEECH
This post is pretty much my case in point. People like this cannot be reasoned with and need an opposing force, or free speech will continue to be quashed by assholes like this. We need to organize and form a free speech protection organization that focuses on the PHYSICAL expression, not aftermath/court/adjudication.

>>137549395
ya well I'm a nazi now because my "friends" convinced everyone I was racist because when he asked what house shoes I was wearing and how could he get some I said I got them from L.L. Bean and he really took it to heart. none of our mutual friends had even heard of that company so they all assumed I was making a racist comment. they dont want you to be on thier side they like it when whitey is the devil. its just easier that way.

>>137549054
>YEAH LET'S THREATEN VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE, NOT LEGAL ACTION
Yes. Violence against violence has a name, it's called self-defense. Legal action has an unacceptable cost- namely, it's much too late, much too expensive, and by then the pressing issue of the day has passed. Why cede these advantages to the violent? Why not engage in robust self-defense to the maximum extent allowed by law?

>>137549495
I think we have both laid out our arguments well enough, so it is time for action. When you organize to mount any violence-against-violence action towards Antifa, me along with all other people who also is disgusted by violence and wants their free speech back, will call the cops on you for inciting violence. You will then devolve into irrelevance, much like Antifa, and will not be welcome in peaceful rallies. I wish you luck in whatever you are trying to do, try not to get your buddies arrested, and don't get in the way of peaceful rallies.

>>137549721

Wow, that is terrible. I do not condone the idea of labeling people, unless they label me of course, and find it disheartening that people would paint some one as a Nazi over shoes. I've found it hard to bond with other white people or even african americans cause they always talk about how everything is racist and everything is out to get the minorities. In fact, I would honestly say that some mexicans that I know are some of the best people I have been around and even agree with me on a majority of points. I don't think people realize that the censorship of ideas through potential backlash is causing a lot of people to, essentially, 'blow up'. I do hope that eventually this people who labeled you see the light and errors of their ways, so long as you forgive them in the long run.

File: goCERNed.jpg (834KB, 1920x1920px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 1920x1920px

>>137530109
A lady on the news tonight literally said,
>"No freedom of speech for Nazis."
I think that about sums it up, right there. "Wrongthinkers" are not allowed to talk about their "aberrant" ideas, upon pain of violence and prosecution.

>>137550055
nah that ship sailed. to be fair they thought the line in the Bob Marley song with the lyrics no woman no cry was about not having a girlfriend. Not much of a loss really.

>>137550054
If someone commits a violent act against you, and you commit an equal violent act back, it's called self-defense. I know you faggots have binned all of your knives and rely on your nanny state, but over here we're not such giant fagoots yet.

I don't care about "devolving into irrelevance" because I don't care about relevance. All I care about is that my fellow citizens of the USA are able to IN PRACTICE exercise their free speech rights without violent coercion. It blows my mind that anyone could ever take the other side of this argument. How far the Brits have fallen.

>>137549933

There is no problem with self-defense, but this brings you down to their level in the long run. People are more likely to be correctly charged and the court session to be open and close if you, pretty much, 'take the hits'. A majority of the Antifa faggots aren't capable of hurting a fly much less another human being. It's only the few Antifa fags that carry around bats and shit that are truly dangerous. Keep in mind that just cause some one said "I want to kick your ass, you Nazi" does not hold up in a court of law very well if you suddenly strike first just because of words they said. Not only that, but you can many times seek financial compensation for your lawyer, medical bills and any damage to your property from your attacker.

>>137550161
Exactly. Most truth as it is currently accepted originated in a "wrongthinker"'s head. The Constitution of the United States of America, as well as case law, explicitly protects an extremely broad array of "wrongthink".

The truth is, wrongthink is extremely valuable for a society. Fuck, even the ancient Jews had it in the form of prophets, who were pretty much professional wrongthinkers who could even troll kings.

Why should we allow a bunch of violent assholes to shut down things they don't agree with? There's simply no reason for it. We need to organize and mobilize a free speech protection organization that protects speech IN PRACTICE, preventing suppression, not trying to compensate far after the fact for suppression (courts/lawyers/etc).

>>137550696
>but this brings you down to their level in the long run
Yeah? Suck a fucking dick. I don't care about "levels". I care about people being able to exercise their fundamental rights as the founders intended.

>A majority of the Antifa faggots aren't capable of hurting a fly
Not concerned with the "majority", I'm concerned with the group as a whole using violence to suppress civil rights.

>you can many times seek financial compensation for your lawyer, medical bills and any damage to your property from your attacker.
By then the societal relevance has faded. You are playing catch-up, trying to right a wrong. Best to not allow the wrong to occur, right?

>>137551027

See, why a majority of people here disagree with you is that you tow a fine line, even crossing said line, of being just as bad as the people who you claim to be fighting against. So it doesn't matter if a majority of Antifa isn't violent, but the voice of the minority of Antifa that is violent paints them in a negative light? Do you not see how hypocritical this appears? Is it okay to 'take care' of some one now just because of something they MIGHT do in the future? You are literally arguing mirrored points from the very people who you want to fight.

>>137551448
>See, why a majority of people here disagree with you
Can you shills get any more obvious? Fucking ridiculous.

>of being just as bad as the people who you claim to be fighting against
Responding with violence to an instigator of violence is called "self-defense". Look it up. Society does not look upon this particular type of violence as being bad, it looks upon it as necessary to defend order.

Let me ask you a question, and I want you to answer without any legalisms: is it ever right to silence someone's free speech rights with violence or threats of violence?

>>137551793

>Still has to refer to people as shills even as, one by one, people who initially agreed are calling out OP for being as much of a faggot as Antifa

I don't quite think you know what the term "shill" refers to. Good luck trying to prove that some one said they will fuck you up in a court of law where likely a majority of witnesses will be against you. Perhaps you can be the proverbial idiot who first enacts your plan and gets sentenced to jail time because you had very little to few to no wounds against some one whom you attacked first just because of what you alleged they said. Also, you keep saying that I refer to everything with legalisms. Do you realize you look like an idiot for saying "no you're wrong, even if legally you are right."?

Also, we have already been through your question, retard. Scroll up and read the other 19 posts I made and realize that I had already denounced that and denounced censorship through use of freedom of speech and, now as a tack on, freedom of press tactics.

>>137552328
Let's delete all of the other text, and just concentrate on this one thing. Give me a direct answer without your usual bullshit.

If a group (A) of people act violently toward a group (B) with the intention of suppressing A's free speech rights, is a group (C) morally justified in defending group B so that they can exercise their free speech rights?

Content of speech is not under consideration here. This is a yes or no question. Either "yes" group C is justified, or "no" group C is not.

>>137552875
Oops, that should read:

>If a group (A) of people act violently toward a group (B) with the intention of suppressing
B's free speech rights, is a group (C) morally justified in defending group B so that they can exercise their free speech rights?

>Content of speech is not under consideration here. This is a yes or no question. Either "yes" group C is justified, or "no" group C is not.

>>137553194
b..but I like gomunism and sonig :DDD

>>137553194
>defending

Depending on what you mean by "defending". You want to be specific, let's hear you be specific first.

>>137553375
"Defending" = legally justifiable self-defense. This is not complicated.

>>137552875

Here you go again with the typical political extremism.

>"Either give me a yes or no. Not these convoluted sentences that help paint a larger frame on your beliefs and stances. I want to know if you are either with me or against me."

If you cannot deduce my stances on such a subject through what I have said, it's your problem, not mine. I do not need to answer how YOU want me to answer, I am free to answer how I feel it is necessary to answer. This is legitimately why everyone who has been in this thread has disagreed with you in the end. Plus, you can't use a generalized term like "act violently" and expect people to just instantly agree or disagree. What the fuck does that even mean? Are they snapping their fingers menacingly like a greaser at group B? Are they swinging their fist just a fly's fart in distance from another person's nose. At this point, you are trying to prove a point that does not exist and would not hold in a court of law outside of ACTUAL violence occurring.

>>137530399
Was there a point in that sterotypical response or are you just baiting for (you)s?

>>137553532
This is how quality shilling works. When you're cornered, shift to "emotion"; "answer how I feel". Then attack the very definitions of words, trying to gaslight the other party. Then attach conditions; "you can't use a term like". Finally, redefine the original argument (act violently) as something different "not hold in a court of law outside of ACTUAL violence occurring".

So, shill, assume "act violently" means "ACTUAL violence occurring", and assume it's not "snapping their fingers menacingly like a greaser".

Then answer the question, please. It's:
>Either "yes" group C is justified, or "no" group C is not.

>>137553499
>legally justifiable self-defense

Mob violence, or gang fight, which you are proposing, is not in the scope of any "legally justifiable self-defense", it is not even "self-defense". Legally justifiable defense is a messy topic, and much more messier in a rally setting, and even more messier in a rally setting where you explicitly geared up expecting violence. But that is not what you are proposing. You are proposing to organize a "preemptive self defense strike force to bash Antifa in a head-on group fight", which is non-sense in legal terms, and no different than gang fight in the eyes of third parties. In fact, since you are posting here about fight fire with fire, it is no longer self defense in any legal sense of the word.

>>137553773
Yeah, I've been following that. I'm actually reply #14 and a couple friendly chaps came over here and gave me some early bumps before the shills could slide it off.

>>137554479
The shills accepted defeat for the most part and sadly the rest of /pol/ wants it to be grand conspiracy.

>>137554106

How am I cornered? You are literally the one who is cornered cause everyone has called you out on your retardation. First of all, there's very little emotion in anything that I have said. Most, if not all, that I have stated is found in reason whether it hurts YOUR FEELINGS or not to realize that no one agrees with you. I am free to answer any question how I like? Are you trying to force me to conform to how you want me to speak? I could have sworn you were all for free speech, oh wait, I called you out on that. Also, nice job making yourself look like the shill you fucking tard. Only retarded leftists use the term 'gaslighting' to gain some sympathy points from people reading your mentally redundant shitposting. Also, it isn't a condition, a generalized term is fucking stupid to argue over. Here's an example: "If some one makes you feel unsafe, do you reserve the right to strike them?". Anyone with half a brain would argue that the terms "feel unsafe" are so generalized that you wouldn't be able to tell if it's just them being there or heckling. Same with acting violent, this could mean anything from yelling, shaking in place, pushing you or any of the such. Also, it doesn't redefine it, any lawyer caught using the term 'acting violent' outside of describing the actual actions is not worth their salt.Finally, I reserve the right to not answer your question cause anyone with the general IQ in the sub 50s would understand the connections between what I said and my stances on certain matters. Keep acting like the people who are trying to demonize, it's doing wonders for convincing people to side with you.

>>137554430
>But that is not what you are proposing. You are proposing to organize a "preemptive self defense strike force to bash Antifa in a head-on group fight"

This is absolute nonsense. Also, you didn't answer the very basic yes or no question. It's unfortunate that someone with your skills has chosen the life path to be a shill. Maybe you'll come to your senses one day. I believe you know what you're doing is wrong.

My proposal is very simple: there are many such groups (B) that are subject to violence from groups (A) for no reason other than the content of their constitutionally protected speech. I propose the existence of a group (C) that physically protects groups such as B regardless of the content of their speech.

I believe using violence or threats of violence to silence people, regardless of their speech, is wrong. Do you agree?

>>137554817
If you put it that way, of course. That is not what we are disagreeing about. You are proposing something that is much more than physical protection. You are proposing violence. My answer is, if you can legally justify it, sure. But legally you cannot. That is my point. There is no legally justifiable violence. You can try to prove me wrong, but you will have to get arrested and go to the court in order to do that.

>>137554106
>>137555084

Also, as stated, you aren't even trying to argue or get anyone to agree with the same thing as the thing you are wanting to promote. This personal at least has enough intelligence to realize that just because you "feel threatened" without some sort of substantial evidence of such a thing occurring, you and your wanted group's actions would have them condemned. Are you sure that you aren't the shill trying to rally people for prison, OP?

>>137555084
well here in america beating someone up is a ticket so thats where a lot of americans part with your views. you dont understand that with freedome comes assholes. and you cant call the cops on an asshole you have to deal with them.

>>137554710
Hahaha

Holy shit, is this the best you have? You motherfuckers need to gather 'round the whiteboard and come up with some new attack plans because this shit ain't going to cut it here. Maybe you're getting tired and sloppy, but based on your earlier work I figured you had something up your sleeve we hadn't seen yet.

Add emotion, subtract emotion, claim you never added it or subtracted it. Try to use social proof, everyone thinks X about you, everyone thinks Y. AM I FREE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION HOW I LIKE? AM I BEING DETAINED? Redefine words like "violence" into "snapping their fingers menacingly". Slowly subverting the commonly accepted definition of "self-defense" into "If some one makes you feel unsafe, do you reserve the right to strike them?"

Not answering a simple question without acting like a fucking weasel. You guys have a lot to learn.

>>137555084
Ok, so you agree that third parties have the right to defend (in the legally accepted sense of "self-defense" or "defense of other") other parties acting lawfully.

So I believe we are in agreement that where police or government fail to protect lawfully acting citizens exercising their constitutional rights, a third party organization (such as the one I'm proposing) could be beneficial.

I condemn unprovoked violence, but not violence in response to unprovoked violence, or toward violence intended to deprive others of their rights. So again, I believe we agree.

Can you highlight exactly what we disagree about?

>>137555483

Do you really think that some one would pay me to argue with one, singular idiot, who has no idea on how correlation works? YOU are the one claiming that I am adding emotions to my arguments. No where have I said something along the lines of "think of the children" or common emotion loving rebuttals, but, you are utilizing "THINK OF FREEDOM!". Also, many different actions can be aligned with that of acting violent. Just cause I am standing here, staring at you while slapping a baseball bat against my hand doesn't mean that I am wanting to assault you. I don't think you would survive long in a horror situation since you would likely kill the menacing individual who is attempting to help you. Maybe when we evolve to read minds, your shitty attempt to rally people would work. I state this because you are in line of that of a numb skull despite what your participation trophy states. Keep acting like MSM does with Trump against everyone here, you aren't helping your case at all.

"OH, TRUMP DIDN'T SAY WHAT I WANTED HIM TO SAY! OBVIOUSLY HE IS A FASCIST!"

>>137556109
Is this really the best you can do? Do you not have any sense of where you are? Do you think this is some kind of convincing argument to the legions of lost souls that inhabit this place?

This is embarrassing for both of us. I'm starting to believe that brain damage from xenoestrogens in the food and water supply is very real, and your posts give us a pretty good idea of what real-world brain damage looks like.

>>137556409

Mmm... It's absolutely adorable how much of a literal fucking idiot you are. I have inhabited this place for much longer than you, shill. Literally everyone at my job refers to me as a Nazi. I have literally called for things that would make your pathetic little attempt to rally up people to prison look like fucking child's play. Yet, unlike you, I can at least act civilized without believing that I am some high value target for the big bad gubments to come after me. You say that my posts refer to real-world brain damage, yet your posts literally voice how utterly incompetent you are. Especially considering you can't comprehend anything unless it's a literal check the box for yes or no question. Also, you can't call me brain damaged when your literal arguments have been "stop saying smart stuff that is legally sound".

Also, for anyone with any form of intelligence is here reading. I would recommend reaching out to your state senator or house member for the potential extension of the right of Free Speech to cover those who are knowingly censored and to even encompass illegality through Social Media banning or censoring the user base. Regardless of what is stated.

>>137556837
>I have literally called for things that would make your pathetic little attempt to rally up people to prison look like fucking child's pla

t. someone to whom an organization to physically protect free speech rights is over the line

>>137556837
shit dont work like that. they own the website they get to do what they want with it. youtube has just recently showed its true colors and it will not be forgotten by the millions of trump voters. they have allowed a disruption in their own business sphere in arrogance. there are literally millions of people that didnt vote democrat and they seem like they are doing everything they can to let people know that they feel in charge now. and the message is undeniable. white people are bad. democrats literally calling themselves the minority party.

>>137557064

You aren't even arguing for the protection of free speech at this point. You're calling for a group that functions through fear of violence much like the very fucking groups you claim to hate. I think everyone can easily agree that you are some fucking dumb nigger from a shitty country like South Africa trying to act like you are an American. You have very little to no understanding on how U.S. law works. I feel for the people who would end up in prison through your stupid nigger logic. "Hurr if they can do it, WE CAN TO!" You don't even realize that such an organization would be instantly labeled as Alt-Right regardless. I guess it's too much to expect people to form any logical conclusions, but what do you expect from a coon? Off yourself.

>>137555869
You want to create a vigilante. Pure legally speaking, vigilantism is illegal. To go from illegal to justifiable, which you have not shown how, requires a great deal of technical details, and specifics, and circumstances, on a case to case basis. That is a completely different topic than vigilantism in the name of free speech, which is a strategy with too shaky a legal ground to stand on, therefore is more likely to hurt than help in the bigger landscape of free speech in political activism, therefore is a shit tier idea, especially compared to strategically organizing comfy rallies when possible, which is a much safer and much more effective campaign, in achieving the goal of curbing violence in political activism, via keeping the peaceful format of rally alive.

>>137557266

Actually, it can be argued that in a modern day and age that Social Media is considered and open space much like a public. As such, freedom of speech would fall under this category and could be fought for, especially when any other start up Social Media platform typically shuts down due to lack of traction due to Twitter and Facebook. Especially with the amount of information that is exchanged through Social Media platforms.

>>137557719
ya but they dont buy that republicans care about anything other than nazism. since they are jewish owned networks how could you possibly think they would allow free speech?

>>137557457
arguing for the protection of free speech
>You aren't even arguing for the protection of free speech at this point

arguing against violence being used to intimidate free speech
>You're calling for a group that functions through fear of violence

argue all sides should be free from threat of violence
>like the very fucking groups you claim to hate

>I think everyone can easily agree that you are some fucking dumb nigger from a shitty country like South Africa trying to act like you are an American
Trying this hard, also like a dumb nigger from South Africa would want to come on /pol/ using a proxy to argue with a fag flag about free speech.

Does your mom know this is what you do for shekels? Shame on you.

>>137558116

It's a potentially tough fight, but we might as well put in the work for it, you know? It's not like calling your state Senator with a suggestion will get you in prison, unlike OP's suggestion. If the lawsuits going through for a call for political figures to be unable to block people on social media, then it can be argued that we can also fight or try to extend free speech for protection on Social Media. Especially being that most Social Media can contain personal information such as addresses and much.

>>137557603
Self-defense and vigilantism are very different. I have never argued that vigilantism is a good thing. Quite the contrary, I'm directly arguing against vigilantism and lawlessness, and arguing for the law; namely legal measures (self-defense) to protect constitutional rights.

But what would a bong know about that? Fuck off faggot.

>>137558366
>It's not like calling your state Senator with a suggestion will get you in prison, unlike OP's suggestion
Oy vey, don't do OP's suggestion, call your (((state senator))), that will surely help (((((us)))))

>>137558175

Too bad, I'm not using a proxy you fucking retard. Unlike you, I don't really care at this point and welcome death if people want to hunt me down for what I have said. I'll gladly be a martyr for the right if it alludes to the hypocrisy of the left. Just because you are too much of a dumb shill, I'll even turn off the stupid fucking selection, that even you can choose. I bet you're as much of a pussy footing little liberal as your shitposting leads on. If not, you make a pretty good cartoon like example of one. No offense to actual upstanding black people, but stupid niggers like you should have been aborted by your husband-less mother. Also, good luck arguing for something that is already illegal, tard.

File: ptlarge.gif (9KB, 450x297px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 450x297px

>>137530109
I recognize those colors!

>>137558366
I dont know about anyone else but I'm used to not being able to voice my opinions. Its why I come here. they do ban you for stupid shit since the last hiring round for sure but at least its not blatant.

>>137558685
>good luck arguing for something that is already illegal, tard
t. someone who "believes" coming to the defense of others is illegal in the US

>>137558392
C protecting A from B is not self-defense, it is vigilantism. Self-defense is when A protects A from B. Apparently my English is better than yours, perhaps because I am a Brit.

>>137558709
kind of like how Liberia and USA's flag are similar

>>137558572

>Oy vey, don't listen to the goyim trying to help you expand your influence in the law of the land. Become a vigilante, attack those who even think of threatening your precious (((free speech)))! Yes, even if you go to prison, remember you fought for the greater (((good))).

Wow I can throw echos on stupid fucking words too kekekekekekekekekeke must make it right?

>>137559084
Vigilantism is retaliatory force. Self-defense is defensive force. There is a difference, and I'm not advocating for retaliation, just defense of vital rights.

>>137559227
The unbearable lightness of being this new

>>137559301
Self-defense is by definition a retaliatory force. You are mistaking self-protection.

>>137558880

I completely understand. I myself typically don't voice my opinions and wish to do so often on Social Media, but afraid of the backlash there. While I don't mind dying as a martyr, I would like to avoid it if at least possible to some degree. I'd rather make them work to come find me than just throw myself right out there. Heck, if you live in a shitty state led by a Democrat, look at other states and try to find some one who aligns with your thought. Shit, message Trump! Don't allow silence to rule your life. Better to try and fail then to have never tried at all. Especially if it can help better your own life and one day the life of your children. Just don't listen to OP, I'd rather not see a respectable individual in jail for something inherently stupid. There's self defense and then there is the idiocy that OP is calling for.

>>137559506
>Self-defense is by definition a retaliatory force.
Nope. Defense is force applied to correct a wrong, applied only until the wrong subsides. Retaliation is force applied as punishment for a prior wrong which has already ceased.

>>137530399
>post on The Daily Stormer
Kek

>>137559301

Self-defense literally stands for SELF-defense. Meaning you defend yourself. You are fucking wrong, the British dude has called you out on it, and are now trying to move the goal posts for the meaning of the word. Stop conflating the term of self-defense and actually try to argue for the meaning. This is why everyone in this thread has disagreed with you, because they realize that your shitty form of vigilantism is akin to that of Antifa and BLM. You should just fuck off from your own thread OP, everyone here realizes how much of a dumb nignog you are.

>>137559981
Taking the most pleb source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

>The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person)

>DEFENSE OF OTHERS, DEFENSE OF A THIRD PERSON

Shill harder

>>137558880

Also, sorry if I come across condescending or too friendly for your taste. I work as a Customer Service rep for a company and sometimes I can't help, but utilize terms that help 'be-friend' irate customers.

>>137560172
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

Wow you can use Wikipedia? So can I! Weird, the Self-Defense Wiki doesn't state defense of others....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense

>>137559533
>Shit, message Trump!
Embrace emotions, not fact. Feel like you did something. FEEL.

>Just don't listen to OP, I'd rather not see a respectable individual in jail for something inherently stupid.
Yeah, don't actually DO something that would logically help address the change in the world you wish to see. Do some virtue signalling thing that makes you FEEL better. FEEL. FEEL. FEEL.

>>137559850
And you want to send all your rally goers to law school so they know how to apply self-defense "correctly"? Your strategy is flawed. By the way, you are just copying Oathkeepers, and they have better plausible deniability for being a club of some sort, and you have your whole doctrine upfront and unmasked. "Free Speech Security" might be a good name for your group. Prove me wrong, and I wish you succeed unironically.

>>137560275
From the page:
>Similar clauses are found in the legislation throughout the western world. They derive historically from article 6 of the French Penal Code of 1791, which ruled that "manslaughter is legitimate if it is indispensably dictated by the present necessity of legitimate defense of oneself or others".

> DEFENSE OF ONESELF OR OTHERS
> OR OTHERS

> OTHERS

>>137560345

Jesus fucking Christ you are literally as retarded as them come, you know that? Where does telling some one to message Trump fall under emotions. I'm providing a second and third way for this dude to have his voice heard. Though, I wouldn't expect you to show any signs of intelligence since you reference fucking WIKIPEDIA of all sources. Fuck, Nigger, pick up a fucking dictionary for once.

>>137560455
>And you want to send all your rally goers to law school so they know how to apply self-defense "correctly"?
There's not too much to learn. It's pretty simple: when the illegal force against you stops, you stop, and use reasonable force. But, your point is valid, yes, there should be training and guidelines.

>>137560576
>Where does telling some one to message Trump fall under emotions
Because it makes you FEEL like you've done something, when in reality you've done nothing.

>pick up a fucking dictionary for once
y-yeah, you too

>>137560679
See how Antifa got their reputation not from the whole group but from a few overly violent cells? Your plan is going to taint the name of free speech, no matter how well you prepare your men for "strictly legal limit self-defense".

>>137560996
>Your plan is going to taint the name of free speech
As if free speech is taintable. Training men/women is strictly for their own benefit. I don't care about public perception, I just care about individual constitutional rights, and that people with unpopular opinions continue to be able to express them, no matter how horrible they may be, without being illegally stifled by violence or threats of violence.

What kind of person would argue against that? What kind of person are you, really? Does your family know this is what you do for shekels? Shame on you.

File: images (5).jpg (2KB, 119x97px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 119x97px

>>137560476
>Literally all lawyer sites say that the idea of coming to the defense of another is up in the air in many jurisdictions and belief of having some sort of relation should be there.
>Arguing that the same court of law where a perp can sue their victim because they stubbed their toe in the victim's house while protect some one under (((self-defense)))
>No, no goyim, don't listen to the man not calling for violence. The court of law will protect you because (((self-defense))).


Maybe you should lead by example and be the first to go to prison. Also, you have this weird belief that if you perform an action, you are feeling unless you are assaulting some one else. It's really weird and you should maybe have a doctor check it out, if you have any in South Africa. As a tack-on, you can't kick the shit out of some one cause they said they would kick your ass, Tyrone. It's called reasonable force, not, what ever the fuck I feel like force. There's a reason why many self-defense claims have fallen through. Just cause you are too much of a pussy to take a punch and use that to sue doesn't mean anyone else.

>>137561246
You are the kind of person that does not care about public perception, that much I can tell. Public perception is one of the most important goal in political activism, or in fact any kind of free speech activity; you want to spread an idea, i.e. gain public perception.

You think violence is necessary. You are wrong.

>>137561590
>idea of coming to the defense of another is up in the air in many jurisdictions
Complete bullshit. Every single state recognizes the right of a person to protect a third party with reasonable force against another person who is threatening to inflict force upon the third party.

EVERY SINGLE STATE

>because they stubbed their toe in the victim's house
The thing that kind of kills me here is that I know you're an intelligent enough person, and I know these are not your actual truly-held beliefs. You're doing this for money, and therefore you're a whore. Actually, worse, since at least whores are honest about what they are.

>>137561950
>Public perception is one of the most important goal in political activism, or in fact any kind of free speech activity; you want to spread an idea, i.e. gain public perception.
This is why efforts to use violence to quell free speech are so insidious. Ideas need to be expressed to become active in public perception, and those who use or threaten violence towards those expressing ideas can effectively stifle those ideas.

>You think violence is necessary. You are wrong.
In case you forgot, I'm the one arguing against violence here, in particular, the specific use of violence to stifle free speech. I am advocating a more vigorous lawful self-defense of third parties engaging in lawful conduct.

>>137562441
Your goal is noble but your plan impractical.

>>137562582
>Your goal is noble but your plan impractical.
OK, why is it impractical? I don't see any reason it is impractical either in principle or in practice.

>>137562669
Like I said, legally shaky, also, it is impractical to try to control your men within "legal limits" because there is no good method for that to happen. Also, you will be useless in peaceful rallies.

>>137562108

Many jurisdictions require some sort of relation to the victim to rule under self-defense. Many other jurisdictions cite that the person has to be in great bodily harm or potential death. Sorry to burst your little belief that the court of law will always side with you, but they wont. They will more likely side with you if you are the only one being assaulted and you turn around and sue the ones who assaulted you. Also you left out the whole "A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is RESPONSIBLE and his property. It must be reasonable."

>>137562988
But I already explained why, at least in the US, it's not legally shaky at all. It's quite clear and well established. You also misunderstand the desired nature of the association; it's an association of like-minded individuals not "my men". And these men/women would be far from being useless in peaceful rallies, quite the opposite, they could help prevent peaceful events from becoming un-peaceful, and could also help violent events to turn peaceful.

Is that all you have? You're not very good at what you do.

>>137563309
No jurisdiction in the United States of America requires any sort of relation to a victim for defense of others. Any other strawmen to knock down?

>>137563318
You completely ignored my criticism as to the lack of method keeping your men, or your like-minded individual or whatever you want to call them, within legal limits. You are not very good at whatever you are doing either.

>>137563891
If there are individuals not within legal limits, they will suffer their own consequences. If they apply illegal force, another member or members of the group is legally justified in using whatever force is reasonable against them until they cease their behavior.

This seems like a contorted hypothetical, and at any rate you're not American, so fuck off back to your sharia-controlled shithole, faggot.

Nighty night, everyone, signing off. I hope you faggot shills will come to your senses and get a real job.

>>137564740

You should go to >>137561937 and test yourself.

>>137564740

Night, night, faggot. Good job not disproving what I said. Use some Google, nigger, and you will realize that I am correct. In some states, you are required to be related to the victim whom you defended. Look at any fucking law site and you will see this outlined under "defense of others". For some one who points out another's inability to argue because they are foreign, you seem to lack the aptitude to realize that many states have different laws, especially related to self-defense and what might fall under it. Have fun going to prison! I will be busy going to work tonight, since my enjoyable weekend ended. Not everyone can shitpost on /pol/ all day.