Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cuda1179 wrote:

I'll agree with you that cops should have badges and names on full display. 100% with you there. However, I'm going to give them a pass on masks when it comes to gas masks and riot helmets.

Riot helmets are supposed to be transparent. They wouldn't obscure someone's identity. Gas masks don't need to always be on.

I've never seen a polo or a MAGA hat used to help someone become anonymous to prevent arrests.

That's not the point of this law though. It's a sentencing modification, specifically targeting one group. It says so right in the fricking name of the bill.

If you look at Antifas websites, they specifically organize to do just that. They were masks and organize groups to impede police so masked assailants can disappear into a crowd.

They also might be wearing masks because the people they're protesting/clashing with have a history of doxxing people.

I mean, you can sit there and talk about "antifa" all you want. It's a buzzword. People have been peaceably protesting and wearing masks or having something to potentially cover their mouths for awhile now, especially given the "tear gas all the things!" attitude that some police departments get.
But this is specifically aimed at one group while ignoring the other. Not seeing any laws forbidding hockey pads or helmets, yet we've seen people on the Neonazi/Trump crowd wearing that kind of crap with homemade "bucklers" where they can get away with it.
We're not seeing any laws forbidding concealed carry or firearms period--yet we've seen dudes wearing full on tactical gear with AR15s acting like they're SWAT "protesting antifa".

So pardon me if I don't bother engaging with you anymore if all you have is "But antifa!".

 d-usa wrote:
Your donkey-caves can beat up my donkey-caves isn’t really a good argument for anyone involved.

Itisif I have a bowl of popcorn, a fat wiener dog on my chest and am watching it on youtube. Entertain me!

So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Its probably because the republicans are turning (well lets be honest always have been) into the snowflakes they have always described and are now scared that people aren't putting up with them or their white supremacist base anymore

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

I'll agree with you that cops should have badges and names on full display. 100% with you there. However, I'm going to give them a pass on masks when it comes to gas masks and riot helmets.

Riot helmets are supposed to be transparent. They wouldn't obscure someone's identity. Gas masks don't need to always be on.

I've never seen a polo or a MAGA hat used to help someone become anonymous to prevent arrests.

That's not the point of this law though. It's a sentencing modification, specifically targeting one group. It says so right in the fricking name of the bill.

If you look at Antifas websites, they specifically organize to do just that. They were masks and organize groups to impede police so masked assailants can disappear into a crowd.

They also might be wearing masks because the people they're protesting/clashing with have a history of doxxing people.

I mean, you can sit there and talk about "antifa" all you want. It's a buzzword. People have been peaceably protesting and wearing masks or having something to potentially cover their mouths for awhile now, especially given the "tear gas all the things!" attitude that some police departments get.
But this is specifically aimed at one group while ignoring the other. Not seeing any laws forbidding hockey pads or helmets, yet we've seen people on the Neonazi/Trump crowd wearing that kind of crap with homemade "bucklers" where they can get away with it.
We're not seeing any laws forbidding concealed carry or firearms period--yet we've seen dudes wearing full on tactical gear with AR15s acting like they're SWAT "protesting antifa".

So pardon me if I don't bother engaging with you anymore if all you have is "But antifa!".

Doxxing is hardly only coming from one side. Also pads and helmets have been seen on both sides as well. "But Antifa" is still more valid than "but MAGA hats".

Also, show me ONE instance of AR-15 toting protestor harming someone with it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Well Anti-fa is far more mainstream than the KKK is. And they’re attacking anybody who is on the red side of the spectrum. They also explicitly advocate violence.

Anti-fa bears more resemblance to fascists than their opponents, in a stroke of irony.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Also, show me ONE instance of AR-15 toting protestor harming someone with it.

Show us one instance of a mask wearing protester harming someone with it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Actually, no. There are several laws that have been passed specifically to keep klansmen from wearing their hoods.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Well Anti-fa is far more mainstream than the KKK is. And they’re attacking anybody who is on the red side of the spectrum. They also explicitly advocate violence.

Seriously....? Call me when antifa murders someone and dumps their body in a swamp. Your comment is so historically inaccurate it is sickening

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/28/gun-fired-in-charlottesville-crowd-orig-lc.cnn

Not an AR-15, but does have bandana and body armor.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Also, show me ONE instance of AR-15 toting protestor harming someone with it.

Show us one instance of a mask wearing protester harming someone with it.

As I noted above, its being used as a tool to aid in preventing those that commit violent act from facing any consequences.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Well Anti-fa is far more mainstream than the KKK is. And they’re attacking anybody who is on the red side of the spectrum. They also explicitly advocate violence.

Seriously....? Call me when antifa murders someone and dumps their body in a swamp. Your comment is so historically inaccurate it is sickening

Sorry, I assumed we were talking about the present day. The KKK hasn’t been relevant for the better part of a century. It’s not 1929 anymore.

 d-usa wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/28/gun-fired-in-charlottesville-crowd-orig-lc.cnn

Not an AR-15, but does have bandana and body armor.

Have you noticed that half of these white supremacists/Neo Nazis look like they got kicked out of a recruiters office and then decided to buy as much mil-sim gear as they could and want to pretend that they are protecting america?

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Well Anti-fa is far more mainstream than the KKK is. And they’re attacking anybody who is on the red side of the spectrum. They also explicitly advocate violence.

Seriously....? Call me when antifa murders someone and dumps their body in a swamp. Your comment is so historically inaccurate it is sickening

The kkk is a shadow of its former self (good for that). I don't think they killed anyone in quite a long time.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Well Anti-fa is far more mainstream than the KKK is. And they’re attacking anybody who is on the red side of the spectrum. They also explicitly advocate violence.

Seriously....? Call me when antifa murders someone and dumps their body in a swamp. Your comment is so historically inaccurate it is sickening

Sorry, I assumed we were talking about the present day. The KKK hasn’t been relevant for the better part of a century. It’s not 1929 anymore.

Still wrong there

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-08-14/the-kkk-is-still-based-in-22-states-in-the-us-in-2017

he organized Ku Klux Klan movement saw a boost in its membership in 2017.

In fact more than half of today's Klans formed in the last three years.

Some 42 different Klan groups were active in 22 states as of June 2017, a slight increase from early 2016, according to a report from the Anti-Defamation League, a nonpartisan civil rights advocacy group. The Klan, known for promoting white supremacist and white nationalist ideas, has captured recent public attention amid fallout from a weekend marked by race-fueled clashes.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Also, show me ONE instance of AR-15 toting protestor harming someone with it.

Show us one instance of a mask wearing protester harming someone with it.

As I noted above, its being used as a tool to aid in preventing those that commit violent act from facing any consequences.

So, the mask is not harming anyone.

I'm sorry, but you should not ban clothing on the basis that it can make the police's job harder after the person has committed a crime. Are you next going to ban all hooded clothes and hats as they can make identification more difficult? What about banning all gloves as they prevent fingerprints and as such can be used as a tool to aid in preventing those that commit violent act from facing any consequences?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Well Anti-fa is far more mainstream than the KKK is. And they’re attacking anybody who is on the red side of the spectrum. They also explicitly advocate violence.

Seriously....? Call me when antifa murders someone and dumps their body in a swamp. Your comment is so historically inaccurate it is sickening

Sorry, I assumed we were talking about the present day. The KKK hasn’t been relevant for the better part of a century. It’s not 1929 anymore.

They dumped their flyers all over a black town here a few years ago.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Also, show me ONE instance of AR-15 toting protestor harming someone with it.

Show us one instance of a mask wearing protester harming someone with it.

As I noted above, its being used as a tool to aid in preventing those that commit violent act from facing any consequences.

So, the mask is not harming anyone.

I'm sorry, but you should not ban clothing on the basis that it can make the police's job harder after the person has committed a crime. Are you next going to ban all hooded clothes and hats as they can make identification more difficult? What about banning all gloves as they prevent fingerprints and as such can be used as a tool to aid in preventing those that commit violent act from facing any consequences?

If they're being used as a necessary tool to commit assault and have no other viable use, probably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

Well Anti-fa is far more mainstream than the KKK is. And they’re attacking anybody who is on the red side of the spectrum. They also explicitly advocate violence.

Seriously....? Call me when antifa murders someone and dumps their body in a swamp. Your comment is so historically inaccurate it is sickening

Sorry, I assumed we were talking about the present day. The KKK hasn’t been relevant for the better part of a century. It’s not 1929 anymore.

They dumped their flyers all over a black town here a few years ago.

So, those flyers beat people up then?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

That being said, banning masks from people intent on harming others isn't a terrible idea, and I don't care what side politically the offenders fall on.

That being said, police should also be banned from obscuring/hiding their badge numbers, names, and they have no business having anything obscuring their faces.
And hey maybe we should ban polos, MAGA hats, and other items specifically associated with one group.

Because that's the point of this law. It's not to "ban masks from people intent on harming others"(because again, they're not always the ones starting crap--but you really should know this)--it's to target specific groups involved with protests. It's also overly broad to the point where someone wearing a scarf could be considered 'obscuring their face' during a protest, violent or not.

Does clothing fall under the 1st amendment's freedom of speech protection?

Cuda is now at whembly level arguing.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

That being said, banning masks from people intent on harming others isn't a terrible idea, and I don't care what side politically the offenders fall on.

That being said, police should also be banned from obscuring/hiding their badge numbers, names, and they have no business having anything obscuring their faces.
And hey maybe we should ban polos, MAGA hats, and other items specifically associated with one group.

Because that's the point of this law. It's not to "ban masks from people intent on harming others"(because again, they're not always the ones starting crap--but you really should know this)--it's to target specific groups involved with protests. It's also overly broad to the point where someone wearing a scarf could be considered 'obscuring their face' during a protest, violent or not.

Does clothing fall under the 1st amendment's freedom of speech protection?

It would if it had a bona fide political or social statement on it and wasn't causing an undue public nuisance or danger. Not even all protest signs are protected, see the Bong Hits For Jesus case.

 cuda1179 wrote:

It would if it had a bona fide political or social statement on it and wasn't causing an undue public nuisance or danger. Not even all protest signs are protected, see the Bong Hits For Jesus case.

Since when does freedom of speech only protect political speech? Does that mean that congress could pass a law making a common phrase like "bread" illegal without it violating your constitutional rights as the word is not a bona fide political or social statement?

With regards the Bongs for Jesus, that ruling was due to the phrase advocating illegal drug use, at what was determined to be a school event. Wearing a scarf is not advocating any illegal action, nor are these school events. The Morse v. Frederick case has no bearing.

 d-usa wrote:
Cuda is now at whembly level arguing.

Odd, I thought you, kanluen, and Ustrello reached that long ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

It would if it had a bona fide political or social statement on it and wasn't causing an undue public nuisance or danger. Not even all protest signs are protected, see the Bong Hits For Jesus case.

Since when does freedom of speech only protect political speech?

Okay I'll add religion to political and social.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

It would if it had a bona fide political or social statement on it and wasn't causing an undue public nuisance or danger. Not even all protest signs are protected, see the Bong Hits For Jesus case.

Since when does freedom of speech only protect political speech? Does that mean that congress could pass a law making a common phrase like "bread" illegal without it violating your constitutional rights as the word is not a bona fide political or social statement?

With regards the Bongs for Jesus, that was due to the phrase advocating illegal drug use. Wearing a scarf is not advocating any illegal action.

Oddly even advocating for the use of, or legalization of, narcotics is protected. I had a friend walk into a "legalize cannabis" rally wearing a shirt that said "legalize crystal meth". Pissed the rallyers off and they called the cops. Nothing came of it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Anti-fa bears more resemblance to fascists than their opponents, in a stroke of irony.

Not remotely, no. Anti-Fascist Action does not, for example, advocate for ethnostates or the purging of the weak by the strong. Since they're majority anarchists they don't view society as a harmonious thing disrupted by outside malicious forces. They don't put people in racial hierarchies. They don't want to control women to ensure that more white babies are born. Etc etc.

That AFA takes the fight to the fascists is not actually a sign of fascism. That's pure and raw liberalism talking.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Anti-fa bears more resemblance to fascists than their opponents, in a stroke of irony.

Not remotely, no. Anti-Fascist Action does not, for example, advocate for ethnostates or the purging of the weak by the strong. Since they're majority anarchists they don't view society as a harmonious thing disrupted by outside malicious forces. They don't put people in racial hierarchies. They don't want to control women to ensure that more white babies are born. Etc etc.

That AFA takes the fight to the fascists is not actually a sign of fascism. That's pure and raw liberalism talking.

Most of the people they punch don't think those things either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think we getting dangerously close to the "Its okay to punch a Nazi" rhetoric that shut down previous US political threads.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

There's been a few arrests prior based on anti-kkk laws from civil rights era, anti-fa now and the Guy Fawkes idiots a few years back.

As someone living in one of the most politically tumultuous cities in the US with perhaps the most "antifa" activity, I'm struggling realllll hard to see where such special Federal legislation is necessary or appropriate. They show up when the Patriot Prayer people come to town to bait a reaction, the donkey-cave fringes toss gak at each other and the police break it up, but thats about it.

It is curious to note however, when they meet, one side has masks, the other is showing up with body armor, ballistic plates, and shields.





In other news, Trump decided to make the...amusing claim that Germany was "Totally controlled by Russia". Yes, Trump said that with a straight face.

Merkel responded...appropriately.

Three hours after Trump’s startling tirade over German imports of Russian gas and its slowness to increase defense spending, Merkel told reporters on arrival at a NATO summit in Brussels on Wednesday: “I have experienced myself how a part of Germany was controlled by the Soviet Union.

“I am very happy that today we are united in freedom, the Federal Republic of Germany. Because of that we can say that we can make our independent policies and make independent decisions. That is very good, especially for people in eastern Germany.”

She also defended Germany’s contribution to an alliance which Trump says has placed too much burden on the U.S. taxpayer: “Germany does a lot for NATO,” she said.

“Germany is the second largest provider of troops, the largest part of our military capacity is offered to NATO and until today we have a strong engagement toward Afghanistan. In that we also defend the interests of the United States.”

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

That being said, banning masks from people intent on harming others isn't a terrible idea, and I don't care what side politically the offenders fall on.

That being said, police should also be banned from obscuring/hiding their badge numbers, names, and they have no business having anything obscuring their faces.
And hey maybe we should ban polos, MAGA hats, and other items specifically associated with one group.

Because that's the point of this law. It's not to "ban masks from people intent on harming others"(because again, they're not always the ones starting crap--but you really should know this)--it's to target specific groups involved with protests. It's also overly broad to the point where someone wearing a scarf could be considered 'obscuring their face' during a protest, violent or not.

Does clothing fall under the 1st amendment's freedom of speech protection?

Yes. This will be struck down as the state won’t be able to provide a compelling reason for this.

Do you really think the KKK stopped killing people in 1929?

Did you forget the entire civil rights movement?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/31/usa.international

I mean the FBI started using The Mafia to find people. What the feth are you even on about? The KKK and other white nationalist organizations are terrorist groups and should be treated as such.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Most of the people they punch don't think those things either.

We had a local who went to the Charlottesville march, have a quick peak at him.