Jump to content

Avoiding chaos


Recommended Posts

The city of Newnan (Atlanta suburb) is bucking against the system. 

The mayor of Newnan has the Governor on his side. 

The reason for this is because a group of Neo-Nazis have decided to host a rally in Newnan on April 21st. 

The Mayor of Newnan cited Charloettesville  and has stated his opposition to such a rally.  

And of course the Shortbus pushing Nazis don't like it. 

They say it violates their rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TheMaximumHornetSting said:

The city of Newnan (Atlanta suburb) is bucking against the system. 

The mayor of Newnan has the Governor on his side. 

The reason for this is because a group of Neo-Nazis have decided to host a rally in Newnan on April 21st. 

The Mayor of Newnan cited Charloettesville  and has stated his opposition to such a rally.  

And of course the Shortbus pushing Nazis don't like it. 

They say it violates their rights. 

I assume the Mayor's stated reason revolves around security given the potential for violence. If that is so, and the holders of the rally can foot the costs of added security, should they be deprived of the right to hold their rally?

The answer is not easy or obvious. They are times I would rather know who my enemies are and what they are thinking than to bottle up speech. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like there is too much of a grey area in regards to free speech. 

Who gets to decide what is a potential threat or what's not? Who gets to be judge and jury? 

Silencing free speech is always a slippery slope. A Puerto Rican day parade could seem hostile and potentially violent to the groups of people who see P Ricans as a threat. 

Even though Nazis and Klansmen are some of the worst people on the planet, they should be able to get together and host speeches and other social functions as long as the space is offered to anyone. 

If any person can rent a place to host whatever they please then Nazis should be able to as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nolebull813 said:

Seems like there is too much of a grey area in regards to free speech. 

Who gets to decide what is a potential threat or what's not? Who gets to be judge and jury? 

Silencing free speech is always a slippery slope. A Puerto Rican day parade could seem hostile and potentially violent to the groups of people who see P Ricans as a threat. 

Even though Nazis and Klansmen are some of the worst people on the planet, they should be able to get together and host speeches and other social functions as long as the space is offered to anyone. 

If any person can rent a place to host whatever they please then Nazis should be able to as well. 

tenor.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that they are being denied permits to use public areas?

 

They can go out to the farm like the Klan used to do down here when I was young. 

Freedom of speech has no "grey area". It means what it means. However, inciting violence and riots etc. and the use of public lands can be denied without violating a person's freedom of speech. It just means you have to exercise that freedom somewhere else. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HawgGoneIt said:

I'm assuming that they are being denied permits to use public areas?

 

They can go out to the farm like the Klan used to do down here when I was young. 

Freedom of speech has no "grey area". It means what it means. However, inciting violence and riots etc. and the use of public lands can be denied without violating a person's freedom of speech. It just means you have to exercise that freedom somewhere else. 

Voicing an opinion that a group you don't agree with potentially will cause violence is a loophole to suppress free speech. 

Hate speech is protected. I understand private land, but public land?

Where should Nazis be allowed to talk? Only where they are told or forced to? Sounds like a violation of the 1A. 

Someone is basically saying I don't agree with the message, and even though I can't predict the future I will label this function violent and therefore will shut it down. 

Where does it stop? Who gets the power to use their opinions to suppress free speech? Who gets that power appointed to them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, Nazis are lower than scum. They are fueled by hate. That is there decision. None of us have to agree with it. But if they don't get to socialize publicly then no one should. 

Muslims should not be able to come together and socialize because of the threat of terrorism. All of their freedoms should be revoked and thrown in the same category as Nazis. They are just Brown Nazis. If you are trying to be consistent across the board of course 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

Voicing an opinion that a group you don't agree with potentially will cause violence is a loophole to suppress free speech. 

Hate speech is protected. I understand private land, but public land?

Where should Nazis be allowed to talk? Only where they are told or forced to? Sounds like a violation of the 1A. 

Someone is basically saying I don't agree with the message, and even though I can't predict the future I will label this function violent and therefore will shut it down. 

Where does it stop? Who gets the power to use their opinions to suppress free speech? Who gets that power appointed to them? 

Their 1st amendment would be violated if we cut out their tongues or wrapped their faces (including their mouth and nose) with duct tape. 

They can climb to the top of a mountain and scream all the hate they want.  Newnan isn't obligated to give anyone a permit that they don't think will be lawful or that may incite riots etc. 

We have to be able to apply common sense to the constitutional rights because they often rub against each other. If allowing the Nazis a rally harms others rights to be happy or safe, how does that get reconciled? All are rights. It's like a balancing act. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Their 1st amendment would be violated if we cut out their tongues or wrapped their faces (including their mouth and nose) with duct tape. 

They can climb to the top of a mountain and scream all the hate they want.  Newnan isn't obligated to give anyone a permit that they don't think will be lawful or that may incite riots etc. 

We have to be able to apply common sense to the constitutional rights because they often rub against each other. If allowing the Nazis a rally harms others rights to be happy or safe, how does that get reconciled? All are rights. It's like a balancing act. 

 

 

you mean the first amendment does not allow me to yell fire in a crowded theater? ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just doesn't seem right that people can be judge and jury to suppress speech they disagree with. 

Funny that the same people who support gay pride parades would be the same people protesting to shut someone else's free speech down. 

Its all politically and ideologically motivated. Bottom line is suppression and discrimination is ok as long as it comes off virtuous to enough of the mainstream 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

Just doesn't seem right that people can be judge and jury to suppress speech they disagree with. 

They can't. The 1st amendment prohibits this. 

 

13 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

Funny that the same people who support gay pride parades would be the same people protesting to shut someone else's free speech down. 

I don't know this to be the case but if they did or not it would not matter. We all have a right to free

 

15 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

Its all politically and ideologically motivated. Bottom line is suppression and discrimination is ok as long as it comes off virtuous to enough of the mainstream 

No, the first amendment does not take back seat to anything you mentioned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Drummer61 said:

You guys are funny...If a conservative goes to speak at Berkeley, U.Of Florida, Cornell or any  other campus they riot and as at Berkeley smash widows and little leftist democrats throw rocks and assault........You never condemn or speak to that....

You love the old two wrongs make a right.

and, of course, your relentless stereotyping 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Well if Newnan says no, then the short bus Nazi's need to take it elsewhere.

Period.

You have a right to hold a rally, but you're not entitled.

If it's disruptive, then no go.

Actually you are entitled.  The Constitution says so.  And they will win in court.  You see, that is how America works.  And a mob in opposition does not hold a veto over it by threatening disruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nolebull813 said:

Just doesn't seem right that people can be judge and jury to suppress speech they disagree with. 

Funny that the same people who support gay pride parades would be the same people protesting to shut someone else's free speech down. 

Its all politically and ideologically motivated. Bottom line is suppression and discrimination is ok as long as it comes off virtuous to enough of the mainstream 

Which is why the First Amendment exists.  The right to free speech is not subject to a vote of the people or a bunch of Twitter users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TheMaximumHornetSting said:

The city of Newnan (Atlanta suburb) is bucking against the system. 

The mayor of Newnan has the Governor on his side. 

The reason for this is because a group of Neo-Nazis have decided to host a rally in Newnan on April 21st. 

The Mayor of Newnan cited Charloettesville  and has stated his opposition to such a rally.  

And of course the Shortbus pushing Nazis don't like it. 

They say it violates their rights. 

If he gives permits to other groups doesn't he have to give the permit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

If he gives permits to other groups doesn't he have to give the permit?

Yes - if Newman goes down this path, they will lose very badly in court and their taxpayers will be pissed.  This has been ruled on multiple times by the courts already.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bormio said:

Yes - if Newman goes down this path, they will lose very badly in court and their taxpayers will be pissed.

That was my thought process but figured I'd ask the question. If the KKK neo nazis whatever want to have a rally they are allowed too. Give them the permit and anyone that shows up without a permit should be locked up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

If he gives permits to other groups doesn't he have to give the permit?

Newnan is a good quiet city in the south Atlanta Metro with about 67,000 people its in Coweta County ECHS lives near Newnan.  

They don't want no trouble and we all know what'll happen if these boot licking asses come to town. 

Newnan/Coweta isn't a blue county or city by any means. 

But they don't want problems so no. 

They don't have too. And the mayor doesn't want too. 

Newnan population: Estimated- 67,533 

Sharpsburg- 34,222. 

They have 3 HS. 

East Coweta HS 

Newnan HS 

Northgate HS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...