The Free Speech Rally on the Boston Common (Clinton: fit in, section 8)

[BOORGONG]

Originally Posted by Masterful_Man

Liberals can't tolerate free speech because free speech might entail that someone will offer a viewpoint that they disagree with.

And anyone who disagrees with liberals is automatically a racist, nazi, or chauvinist male pig, etc.

Masterful Man, is that your CB handle, your gamer moniker or just indicative of a personality disorder?
What is it with all the Nazi fuzzy feelers coming out of the woodwork?

[ben young]

Originally Posted by BOORGONG

Masterful Man, is that your CB handle, your gamer moniker or just indicative of a personality disorder?
What is it with all the Nazi fuzzy feelers coming out of the woodwork?

So when someone disagrees with you ,they are a " Nazi fuzzy feeler " ?

[StarlaJane]

Originally Posted by BOORGONG

Masterful Man, is that your CB handle, your gamer moniker or just indicative of a personality disorder?
What is it with all the Nazi fuzzy feelers coming out of the woodwork?

I think that this is precisely MM's point: many liberals depict any one who defends free speech as agreeing with and/or supporting what is being said.

Free speech is not about agreeing with what is being said but with the right for it to be said. In short, free speech is about protecting the diversity of ideas that has made (and continues to make) this country great.

As Voltaire once stated, "Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites mais je me battrai jusqu'a la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire" [I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.]

[timberline742]

Oh come on, this isn't and wasn't about 'free speech'.

[StarlaJane]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Oh come on, this isn't and wasn't about 'free speech'.

Actually, it is. The whole point was to host a rally that featured speech that would be unpopular and/or offensive.

This sort of rally was held by liberal protestors throughout the '60's; the only difference is that conservatives are now the minority and they are receiving the same treatment as their predecessors :violent push back by the majority.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Oh come on, this isn't and wasn't about 'free speech'.

Originally Posted by StarlaJane

Actually, it is. The whole point was to host a rally that featured speech that would be unpopular and/or offensive.

This sort of rally was held by liberal protestors throughout the '60's; the only difference is that conservatives are now the minority and they are receiving the same treatment as their predecessors :violent push back by the majority.

The point was to host a rally that featured extremely right wing speech that would be unpopular and offensive, so as to draw out a large contingent of protesters (I don't think it accurate to call them counter-protesters, as the rally wasn't really a protest of anything other than maybe the proposed counter-protest, if that makes any sense) who would make the left look bad. Mission accomplished. With something like 50 actual attendees of the "free speech rally" to nearly 1000 times as many protesters.

This sort of thing gets sold as more than it really is to both sides. People on the right, although not nearly as far on the right as some of the proposed speakers, are persuaded to think that it's an US vs THEM fight, when really the US proposes some pretty objectionable things and if they just listened to what they had to say they would probably not only disagree, but maybe start to feel a little dirty. The protesters (or counter-protesters, if you want), get to feel like they are "standing up to hate" or something like that.

Unfortunately, with so many protesters, you run into the problem that the shear size actually does impede their ability to assemble. Which makes sort of makes their only salient point valid--that they are not allowed to voice their opinions peaceably. The mayor getting on the news and saying they aren't welcome doesn't really help, either. They also get WAY more attention than they deserve for a 50 person rally.

[GeePee]

There was a mini rally held in my neighborhood during president trumps first public speech when he was elected. There was a group of people who congregated in the square banging pots and pans shouting we can't hear you. The facebook message board was active.People were saying that they thought that was a little childish to do so. And the popular majority jumped down their throats. A savage attack by numbers. It took less than 5 posts to start calling anyone who opposed anything they said being called number 1: racist, close second: homophobic. It is a week tool that has been adapted and the weak minds seem to not see the irony of it. It is a sad state.
I did not vote for or support the current office one bit. There are many issues i wholeheartedly disagree with. But the first thing i learned in elementary school was to let people finish talking then you make a measured response.
This has all gone out the window because well ......they know exactly how RIGHT they are.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeePee

This has all gone out the window because well ......they know exactly how RIGHT they are.

And that describes some on this forum too, unfortunately.

As wrong is the original group's message might have been, the fact that their protestors were committing acts of violence against the police and innocent bystanders make them far worse in their actions. The "free speech" crowd was doing nothing illegal or harmful to anybody.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by StarlaJane

Actually, it is. The whole point was to host a rally that featured speech that would be unpopular and/or offensive.

This sort of rally was held by liberal protestors throughout the '60's; the only difference is that conservatives are now the minority and they are receiving the same treatment as their predecessors :violent push back by the majority.

It is idiots going out of their way to be offensive. Free speech is fine. It's when they cross over into actively promoting racism, discrimination, instutionalized bigotry and suppressing people of color where it must be fought. This isn't about being free to speak one's mind, they're people acting to hurt others, not just talking about it, but doing it. Some of the guests weren't free speech advocates, they were damn Nazis and fascists.


In Charlotessvile. We saw the take a car and run a young woman down. We saw them shoot at a black man (that man was FINALLY arrested!) and openly caring guys, shields and clubs while trying to promote the ideals of Jim Crow era statues meant to intimidate and re-exert control of people of color by whites (they had nothing to do with "history" other than the history of beating people of color into submission).


The difference the 60s is that people were speaking for peace and tolerance. That is not the same as speaking for hate. Just as yelling kill that man is not the same as yelling I love you.




Yes, people are sure they are right. If you're not sure that Nazis and fascists are "wrong" then something is wrong with you. I am 1000000% sure I am right on that.


I, for one, am glad there are people that stood up to these hateful thugs. My friends at least in Vermont were helpful at a campaign to get one of the Nazis fired from his job near Burlington.

[StarlaJane]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

The point was to host a rally that featured extremely right wing speech that would be unpopular and offensive, so as to draw out a large contingent of protesters (I don't think it accurate to call them counter-protesters, as the rally wasn't really a protest of anything other than maybe the proposed counter-protest, if that makes any sense) who would make the left look bad. Mission accomplished. With something like 50 actual attendees of the "free speech rally" to nearly 1000 times as many protesters.

This sort of thing gets sold as more than it really is to both sides. People on the right, although not nearly as far on the right as some of the proposed speakers, are persuaded to think that it's an US vs THEM fight, when really the US proposes some pretty objectionable things and if they just listened to what they had to say they would probably not only disagree, but maybe start to feel a little dirty. The protesters (or counter-protesters, if you want), get to feel like they are "standing up to hate" or something like that.

Unfortunately, with so many protesters, you run into the problem that the shear size actually does impede their ability to assemble. Which makes sort of makes their only salient point valid--that they are not allowed to voice their opinions peaceably. The mayor getting on the news and saying they aren't welcome doesn't really help, either. They also get WAY more attention than they deserve for a 50 person rally.

I don't agree that the point was to draw out protesters or to make the left look bad; I think that the speakers really did want to speak and made an excellent point in demonstrating just how dangerous the politically-correct far left has become. Not only were the conservatives not able to assemble peaceably but the protesters were actually attacking the police

And I am not buying the argument that the protesters were somehow manipulated into protesting and/or behaving aggressively/violently, especially towards the Boston P.D. All they had to do was stay home. But, as you astutely point out, if they had stayed home, they couldn't feel self-righteous as they "stood up to hate" nor would they have been able to control what was being said in their city, which is precisely what they did.