Summary
A group displaying swastika flags on an I-75 overpass in Evendale, Ohio, was confronted by local residents, leading to tensions and a heavy police presence.
Residents pushed past police, seized a flag, and forced the demonstrators to retreat into a U-Haul truck.
Officials, including Cincinnati’s mayor and Hamilton County’s sheriff, condemned the demonstration.
The Jewish Federation and NAACP also spoke out, questioning where the demonstrators came from. The NAACP suggested the current administration’s policies may have emboldened the group.
No arrests were made.
Use whatever example you want, it’s always the same thing. It’s a discussion about laws and you keep mixing your feelings in the equation. In the eyes of the law there’s a difference between stating your hate X and stating you want to be violent towards X, one is legal, the other isn’t, no matter which group X is.
Yes, because the US is halfway to being a Nazi state, the law is overly permissive of Nazis.
Just like how the US started as a white supremacist nation where the law allowed slavery.
My feelings have nothing to do with the extent to which white supremacy and Nazism influences the US state to allow threats of violence against marginalized groups to be permissible. US law is not impartial, it is biased in favor of Nazis and white supremacists.
If the law is the same for everyone no matter who they say they hate then the law isn’t overly permissive to a certain group of haters.
You’re spouting the same bullshit used to justify redlining. The law is not the same for everyone. Even if letter of the law stays neutral, the way it gets enforced matters.
Notice how students that peacefully protest for Palestine get arrested and put in handcuffs, but literal Nazis walk free. The law is not the same for everyone.
If you notice, the discussion has been about the law from the get go, not enforcement (although in this case this specific law was enforced properly). I was correcting someone who said that free speech doesn’t protect hate speech in the US, but it does.
Yes, I agree, you are correct on this point. Where you are wrong, and where I was correcting you, was that you were saying hate speech is not violence.
Hate speech is violence, Nazism is violence, but it’s protected violence, not because of any morality or value around free speech, but because the US is already partly a Nazi state.
It’s not violence in the eyes of the law, which is the point of view we were talking about until you jumped in, if you want to have a conversation about that then go ahead, start a conversation about how “free speech law is wrong and hate speech is violent and should be banned” and I’ll be on your side, but this is not this conversation.