Clark NOT Fired by Reaper Over Antifa Criticism

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.

**odinsgrandson**

Manchu wrote:
cuda1179 -

I guess whoever told your friend to "check his white male privilege" couldn't tell that your friend was Jewish. But I mean, should that matter? I guess there are two ways that you could go there. If you are male and white, or at least I guess, er, passably white, then you enjoy privilege regardless of whatever else about you might be underpriviledged? Or does being, for example, Jewish counteract your privileged status of being male and white?

OK so I hope its apparent I think this all dumb. Counting up positive and negative modifiers for your character attributes ... life is not a some RPG! The language of "privilege" is a metaphor that has revealed some interesting points but it is basically now weaponized. It's just a "shut up" button.

After listening to a podcast by James Goldberg, I'm convinced that a lot of this stems from guilt.

As a society, the collective "we" are responsible for a lot of bad things that have happened. A lot of oppression over the years. We don't want to bear the burden of all of the collective guilt that humans have in the past and now continue to commit- even though we benefit from it.

So we take these past oppressors and we put qualifiers on them. They were white, rich, cis male, straight, etc. These monikers are to distance ourselves from feeling that guilt- it becomes associated with the "other."

This naturally goes on with both sides- the people who cannot escape the 'oppressor' monikers are likewise trying to alleviate themselves of the guilt of the evils that they do benefit from.

The concept of privilege is something that I think we can all agree on. Some people are born with advantages that others lack (be it wealth, opportunities or having a face people trust). Checking ourselves for privileged ideas is a useful introspection that can be very helpful for personal betterment.

I think there are times when it is appropriate to tell someone to look inward and 'check their privilege.' But let's be a bit fair- when you're the one feeling oppressed, and other people are telling you that you're wrong to feel that way, you probably want to scream. It makes it hard to have polite conversation.

And when you put that on the internet, all emotion gets turned up to 100.

**Polonius**

Luke_Prowler wrote:

What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well

It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.

**jhe90**

Back to topic...

Any evidence he been fired or not solidly. Because now there's a title and things claiming not.

So is he fired, or not fired.
One cannot be both!

**Luke_Prowler**

So something is only assault if it's said to their face.

Gotcha

**Manchu**

jhe90 -

The poster odinsgrandson quoted Clark's FB account earlier ITT where Clark clarified that he was not fired by Reaper.

**whembly**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
So something is only assault if it's said to their face.

Gotcha

That's not what he said.

**daedalus**

Polonius wrote:

It's not strictly an ad hominem. It's a widely misused rhetorical shortcut, which is, as Manchu said, essentially weaponized.

The classic example of where the concept has some validity would be a debate about food stamps. When person A argues that food stamps reward laziness, polinting out that he's worked hard and has never needed help, the odds are that the Person A has no really understood where he started on the socio-economic ladder, what benefits he had to avoid the need for benefits, or even what benefits he has actually gotten. A person who has worked hard their whole life, but had parental support in terms of a stable household, maybe some business connections, and out of school education is going to have a sizable advantage over another person, working equally hard, growing up with a single mother working full time that has no means to provide the basics, much less education or connections. Of course, that's a long, difficutl thing to say, and so people respond with "check your privilege."

The other thing to be aware of, and this is an unfair stereotype, but one I've definitely seen, is that you will see people making just terrible argument, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and simply thrashing about. Finally, somebody says ""check your privilege" or calls them racist, and they triumphantly declare victory over the foul SJW.

The people I know on social media that talk the most about facts, logic, and reason are the people that are most consistently immune to it in any sort of discussion.

That's fair to say. I didn't mean to suggest that all uses of the term were an ad hominem automatically, though I suppose that is what I actually said. I guess I was trying to suggest that the particular use of it as a means of shutting up dialogue as discussed was somewhat of an ad hominem, as it's addressing the particular person's racial background and the luxuries assumed to be possessed of someone thereof, rather than addressing their actual argument.

I'm fully willing to concede that there are situations where it's an appropriate response, but the cases I've seen it personally used more often seem like the last refuge of argument rather than "your argument is literally made from the point of view of someone who cannot conceive of a human in that position."

**A Town Called Malus**

Polonius wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:

What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well

It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.

But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.

Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.

**odinsgrandson**

jhe90 wrote:
Back to topic...

Any evidence he been fired or not solidly. Because now there's a title and things claiming not.

So is he fired, or not fired.
One cannot be both!

He is not fired. Also, the cat is dead.

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:

What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well

It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.

But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.

Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.

Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threat need to be imminent to lose the free speech protection.

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:

What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well

It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.

But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.

Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.

Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threat need to be imminent to lose the free speech protection.

But then what is the definition of imminent? Does that mean you could post letters to people threatening to kill them and still have it protected because the threat isn't imminent due to the travel time of postal mail?

**jhe90**

Manchu wrote:jhe90 -

The poster odinsgrandson quoted Clark's FB account earlier ITT where Clark clarified that he was not fired by Reaper.

odinsgrandson wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
Back to topic...

Any evidence he been fired or not solidly. Because now there's a title and things claiming not.

So is he fired, or not fired.
One cannot be both!

He is not fired. Also, the cat is dead.

Thanks. Just looking for a answer.

And if the cat died who gonna patrol for spam and guard us from tempting cheap kitchen offers?

**Luke_Prowler**

whembly wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
So something is only assault if it's said to their face.

Gotcha

That's not what he said.

But when combined with his statement he said before that, it is what he's saying. Someone saying they should kill X is Protected Speech, and only when X is specific to someone who's in a near vicinity and saying the should kill at that point in time does it no longer count as Protected Speech. There for, it's only possible for assault to stick if the person being thretened was there.

If that, really. Assault seems like one of those crimes that's hard to enforce, and when attempted to be enforced is considered petty for doing so.

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:

What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well

It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.

But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.

Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.

Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threat need to be imminent to lose the free speech protection.

But then what is the definition of imminent? Does that mean you could post letters to people threatening to kill them and still have it protected because the threat isn't imminent due to the travel time of postal mail?

It's imminent when it's specific. Here's a good breakdown, but here's the key piece:
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific.

Here's some interesting case laws.

**Galas**

Is a pretty grey area, to be honest.

"If you vote me, I'll kill personally all the black people!" is protected but "Ey, kill those black guys over there!" isn't. Wheres the line for something to be unreasonable and unvelieblable? Genocide is pretty reasonable and possible. We have commited it many times! Trust me, I'm spanish, I know about that. Just ask the Aztecs.

**jhe90**

whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:

What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well

It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.

But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.

Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.

Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threat need to be imminent to lose the free speech protection.

But then what is the definition of imminent? Does that mean you could post letters to people threatening to kill them and still have it protected because the threat isn't imminent due to the travel time of postal mail?

It's imminent when it's specific. Here's a good breakdown, but here's the key piece:
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific.

Here's some interesting case laws.

Seems the logic is that you can follow though and have ability to harm person your making threat too.

Makes sense.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?

**Manchu**

Those chants probably don't amount to violent threats as far as the case law is concerned, and that's before we get to whether they are imminent threats.

TBH I am not even sure what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean, one way or the other.

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?

So... this came up my twittah feed that I think is appropriate:

The Volokh Conspiracy
No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.

The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, §12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988).

Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.”

For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.

Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech (whether bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans or blasphemy or flag burning or anything else). Perhaps some statements of the “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” variety are deliberate attempts to call for such an exception, though my sense is that they are usually (incorrect) claims that the exception already exists.

I think no such exception should be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be debated. Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, just as they have a First Amendment right to call for gun bans or bans on Islam or government-imposed race discrimination or anything else that current constitutional law forbids. Constitutional law is no more set in stone than any other law.

But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law, and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t just rely on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” doesn’t, I think, suffice.

**A Town Called Malus**

This leaped out at me:

For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.

Sounds like the author needs to read up on McCarthy and HUAC.

**djones520**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?

So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?

I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.

**Manchu**

Well, first, McCarthyism is generally understood to be synonymous with abuse of government and oppression. But, second, and more technically germane, the stated function of these congressional inquiries was not to narrow free speech protections (although they undermined the cultural value of free speech and likely had a chilling effect on free speech) but rather to uncover and root out criminally treasonous acts such as spying. These inquiries go on to this very day, for example as against the alleged connections between President Trump supporters and the Russian government.

**Galas**

djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?

So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?

I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.

Yes. Just like if you put a bunch of guys in a KKK uniform yelling "Kill those n***rs!" around a church or building full of black people.

**AlmightyWalrus**

djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?

So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?

I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.

Sure, I'd argue they'd reasonably be justified in feeling imminently threatened in such a situation and that a protest march that starts chanting "death to X", no matter what X is, should be shut down. Death threats are not okay. If left-wing protestors showed up and started chanting "Kill the fascists!" I'd expect police to step in too.

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?

So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?

How about instead we go back to the Bundy Brigade and their militia twerps aiming rifles at Bureau of Land Management officials?

Would the Bureau folks have had a reasonable cause to open fire?

We both know what your argument's going to be, so don't bother. We played through that charade before.

I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.

And I feel like you and several others in this thread have been wildly disingenuous when it comes to the actions of these white nationalist twits and the people who protested them. It keeps coming down to "Soandso did bad things too!" and that nonsense that kept coming up about the terminology of Nazis and crap like that.

You're right that it would have been an entirely different discussion on this forum, as it would be the people on the opposite side of the stance you're taking right now telling you exactly what has been said repeatedly over Antifa--it's a decentralized loosely titled bunch of people who have come to roughly similar beliefs/actions for whatever reason.

But enough of trying to pretend that it's the same thing as white nationalist groups, which are in fact highly centralized within the group itself and the different groups do communicate amongst each other. For Christ's sake we had a whole big thing during the campaign when one of Trump's advisors(Miller) was photographed flashing a white supremacist 'gang sign' at a press conference!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
Well, first, McCarthyism is generally understood to be synonymous with abuse of government and oppression. But, second, and more technically germane, the stated function of these congressional inquiries was not to narrow free speech protections (although they undermined the cultural value of free speech and likely had a chilling effect on free speech) but rather to uncover and root out criminally treasonous acts such as spying. These inquiries go on to this very day, for example as against the alleged connections between President Trump supporters and the Russian government.

Strictly speaking, the purpose of McCarthyism was not to "uncover and root out criminally treasonous acts such as spying" but rather it was to allow for "patriotic Americans to showcase their virtues". McCarthy's witch hunt went after people on pretty much anything and everything if the individual had already been denounced. There's a literal reason why it was called a 'WITCH HUNT'--using a term that evoked the methods that the Catholics used to prosecute women as witches.

And really? "Alleged connections"?

You're better than that, Manchu.

**sirlynchmob**

djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?

So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?

I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.

Except BLM did no such thing. You were lied to and you fell for it.

http://www.snopes.com/black-lives-matter-protesters-chant-for-dead-cops-now-in-baton-rouge/

**Polonius**

A good rule of thumb for this sort of behavior would be that there needs to a reasonable fear that the speaker and their audience would act on the speech, either immediately, or with a plan. So, again, when a speaker addresses a crowd of a 100 people, and says, "Let's kill all of the Muggles," that's not a reasonable threat. There's no way they could.

A crowd of 100 people, near a gathering place full of maybe two dozen muggles, are a reasonable threat. If the speaker said "we should go there and kill all of those muggles," the cops could (and probably should) step in, because that's a very imminent threat.

Genocide is also not a federal or state crime. I know this sounds pedantic, but considering how broadly it's defined, that's probably a good thing we let the Hague sort that one out.

It's tough for most people, even Americans, to understand how seriously we take the constitution in our legal system. My snarky constitutional law professor taught extensively in Italy, and he used to joke that in Europe, people have many more rights, but they only have the rights the government gives them. In the US, the government only has the rights that we give it. In practice it blurs, but it's an important part of American exceptionalism, and I think it's one of the reasons we've been able to hold our country together when so many other revolutionary republics imploded.

**Manchu**

Let me just clarify that the point at which law enforcement officers are justified in deploying lethal force is completely off-topic here.

Kanluwen, as usual I don't know what you are on about. I mean, read what you quoted. It literally says McCarthyism is synonymous with abuse and oppression.

**Kanluwen**

Manchu wrote:
Let me just clarify that the point at which law enforcement officers are justified in deploying lethal force is completely off-topic here.

So is what Black Lives Matter did or didn't do--yet I don't see you talking about how people talking about that is "off-topic here".

Kanluwen, as usual I don't know what you are on about. I mean, read what you quoted. It literally says McCarthyism is synonymous with abuse and oppression.

I'd suggest you read what you posted then:

Manchu wrote:Well, first, McCarthyism is generally understood to be synonymous with abuse of government and oppression. But, second, and more technically germane, the stated function of these congressional inquiries was not to narrow free speech protections (although they undermined the cultural value of free speech and likely had a chilling effect on free speech) but rather to uncover and root out criminally treasonous acts such as spying. These inquiries go on to this very day, for example as against the alleged connections between President Trump supporters and the Russian government.

I take umbrage with you trying to portray the investigation into Russian interference and collusion as a "witch hunt" by even placing it in the same breath with McCarthyism. A witch hunt implies that there is no logic, only zeal. Pay attention to the news sometime, you'd have seen quite a bit of logic being used(see the raid on Paul Manafort's house in July for example) as to why Trump and his supporters are being investigated.

All honesty Manchu, I feel like you've latched onto McCarthyism the same way that Trump did--the idea that he's being "unfairly targeted" and he wanted a term that deflected the suspicions on him while continuing to make him seem like the victim of the Democrats' political machinations. McCarthyism wasn't about targeted investigations or the preponderance of evidence--it was about people's "feelings" and what they "heard" about someone, not what actually could be proven.

That is why McCarthy's Red Scare was referred to as a "witch hunt". Because anyone could denounce anyone over anything and as long as enough people started denouncing someone pr someone with clout believed the denouncement...all of a sudden they're an enemy of the state.

**Manchu**

There is a congressional inquiriy into the alleged Trump/Russia connection. Trump has denounced it as a witch hunt. It is certainly political. At the same time, there is enough smoke here for the American people to demand a conclusion about whether there is also fire. But my actual point above was, such inquries are not relevant to the conversation about free speech we had been having, because they investigate crimes. Another poster brought them up, mistakenly, as something to do with legal limits on free speech. Even so, I also noted that McCarthyism and the parnoia associated with the HUAC and similar inquiries do deterioriate free speech culture and have a chilling effect on free speech.

Kanluwen, you are going off half-cocked and your posts are all over the place, with very little grasp of what you propose to criticize.