Calling it a White-Supremacist Rally is almost absurd — it was a White-Supremacist Gaggle, at best. I walked the Mall on Sunday to check it out, and couldn't help but laugh. After a year of...
Calling it a White-Supremacist Rally is almost absurd — it was a White-Supremacist Gaggle, at best.
I walked the Mall on Sunday to check it out, and couldn't help but laugh. After a year of talking about how Antifa only made them stronger, they managed to wrangle a few dozen people and were outnumbered by a thousand.
$2.6 million spent, at least. Weeks of hype and anxiety. Private Metro car, Police escort.
Total flop. What a shit-show.
I went to the Air & Space Museum instead and had a jolly time. I touched a moon-rock. 8/10 day.
I think technology has pushed a lot of these types into hiding. You can't be open about that stuff as easily today. Imagine getting a picture of you taken in a klan outfit and go into the office...
I think technology has pushed a lot of these types into hiding. You can't be open about that stuff as easily today. Imagine getting a picture of you taken in a klan outfit and go into the office Monday with it all over the internet. Which is obviously a good thing because it keeps people away from terrible behavior in a small way.
I feel like it's had the opposite effect as well. The internet and its anonymity has provided a place for neo-nazis to organize and recruit globally in relative safety, even if those benefits...
I feel like it's had the opposite effect as well. The internet and its anonymity has provided a place for neo-nazis to organize and recruit globally in relative safety, even if those benefits don't translate into real world gatherings.
"recourse for their actions" this sounds like victim blaming to me. It doesn't matter what someone says their words should never be met with violence. No matter how fucked up stupid and evil they...
"recourse for their actions" this sounds like victim blaming to me. It doesn't matter what someone says their words should never be met with violence. No matter how fucked up stupid and evil they might be.
Technically Hitler never committed any violence, he just said words. Sorry to pull such a dramatic example on you but you get my meaning, right? It's very easy for real violence to be the...
Technically Hitler never committed any violence, he just said words.
Sorry to pull such a dramatic example on you but you get my meaning, right? It's very easy for real violence to be the consequence of a bad person's ideology and speech.
If Hitler is responsible for the crimes of his soldiers, are figures like Richard Spencer not responsible for the hate crimes of their followers? Sure Richard Spencer doesn't openly give direct...
If Hitler is responsible for the crimes of his soldiers, are figures like Richard Spencer not responsible for the hate crimes of their followers? Sure Richard Spencer doesn't openly give direct orders, but far right figureheads have used dog whistles time and time again to encourage violence, and we've seen that it works, the violence has happened. So are they not responsible?
That may be, but that doesn't mean we could let some guy on the street beat him up or kill him. It should be worked through the legal system and he should be charged with a crime. Edit: changed...
That may be, but that doesn't mean we could let some guy on the street beat him up or kill him. It should be worked through the legal system and he should be charged with a crime.
Edit: changed first word form they to that. Just a auto correct mistake
Fair enough. I'm not saying he deserves to be killed in the streets either, I just think these situations are a lot more complicated than whether or not the person in question actually pulled a...
Fair enough. I'm not saying he deserves to be killed in the streets either, I just think these situations are a lot more complicated than whether or not the person in question actually pulled a trigger or threw a fist. Words cause violence, so we have to be ready to treat words as violence in certain situations.
My personal opinion on this is kind of... a conflicted shrug. I don't actively want anyone getting beaten in the streets, but if it happens to a neo-nazi, I'm not exactly bothered and I completely understand the motivation behind the actions.
Yeah I understand the shrug response. However I really dislike the precident that would set. It's kinda like Twitter nowadays they have mob justice when someone does something bad but they very...
Yeah I understand the shrug response. However I really dislike the precident that would set. It's kinda like Twitter nowadays they have mob justice when someone does something bad but they very often get it wrong and end up ruining someone's life who doesn't deserve it.
"I WANT TO KILL ALL OF YOU FUCKING [EXPLETIVE] [EXPLETIVE]S!" Generally, in most states the above's more than enough for Stand Your Ground laws to come into play, which arguably is persecuting...
"I WANT TO KILL ALL OF YOU FUCKING [EXPLETIVE] [EXPLETIVE]S!"
Generally, in most states the above's more than enough for Stand Your Ground laws to come into play, which arguably is persecuting them under the legal system.
(For the record, I don't generally support SYG laws, buuuuuuuuuuut...no harm in using their own laws against them in this context, in my opinion.)
I still don't understand how Trump continues to defend these people. I am so so glad nothing broke out like at charllotesville. I know it is his 30% base but come on dude, you aren't back in the 40s
I still don't understand how Trump continues to defend these people. I am so so glad nothing broke out like at charllotesville. I know it is his 30% base but come on dude, you aren't back in the 40s
Every day he makes it more and more obvious. Literally calling Omorsa a dog just like he has with other females. I just hate that we went from obama to this.
Every day he makes it more and more obvious. Literally calling Omorsa a dog just like he has with other females. I just hate that we went from obama to this.
I'm not really sure. My first gut reaction is that actually believing it is undoubtedly worse. What do you think the consequences are for both? Emboldening the alt? Normalizing it? Raising their...
I'm not really sure.
My first gut reaction is that actually believing it is undoubtedly worse. What do you think the consequences are for both? Emboldening the alt? Normalizing it? Raising their numbers? I can see how pretending to follow it could have the same results in those cases. I really have to ask though how much of it is deliberate. I mean we know the move to republican party was deliberate to have a better chance of winning. A lot of other moves were strategically made. But it gets more shakey to place purposeful blame on someone using dog whistle type things when I can't be sure. And I know that's half the strategy around it, I guess I just can't see the end goal for someone like Trump using it as the only thing I can rationalize is if someone was literally trying to make a nazi Germany 2.0.
The Unite the Right 2 rally, held on the anniversary of the deadly white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville attracted fewer than 40 supporters. But law enforcement responded with a massive presence to keep the white supremacists physically separated from thousands of counterprotesters.
Anu Rangappa, a spokeswoman for Mayor Muriel Bowser, stressed that the $2.6 million price tag was an early estimate and not the final cost that will be charged to the federal government. She could not immediately answer if the city incurred additional expenses related to the event that cannot be reimbursed.
It's ridiculous that local areas should have the bear the cost of this stuff. Policing, cleaning up after the fact, etc. Even if they have a line in the budget to congress to help pay for it,...
It's ridiculous that local areas should have the bear the cost of this stuff. Policing, cleaning up after the fact, etc. Even if they have a line in the budget to congress to help pay for it, which just means that we all pay for it.
Those who want to protest should have to put up a bond equal to the average cost of past similar protests before they can get a permit. A board of local citizens can decide what "similar" means, and thus, the resulting bond amount.
This is a ridiculous suggestion and directly against the First Amendment in my view. Allowing the government to place a monetary barrier to allow a protest is equivalent to disallowing (some)...
This is a ridiculous suggestion and directly against the First Amendment in my view. Allowing the government to place a monetary barrier to allow a protest is equivalent to disallowing (some) protest in all but name.
Imagine if minimum wage workers wanted to protest working conditions, but had to put up a multi-thousand dollar bond to do so. Or the protesters in Ferguson had to fork up $5.7 million (note: I don't know that I trust the Washington Times on this, and can't find their original sources, but if it's only $1 million, does that make much of a difference?). This might be fine for large scale national protests (e.g., the Women's March) where such funds might be raised via Kickstarter or whatever, but this could easily squash any protest at the local level.
Further, if enabled, you would have just given the keys to stop any protest to any opposition you might think up. Black lives matter protest? Well, just have a couple of hundred Alt-Righter's plan a counter-protest and all of a sudden the cost of the bond is going way up, and the protest is likely shut down.
Yes, yes it is. But there's an easy out here - If the cause that wants to protest doesn't want excessive bond costs, then if as a group they enforce rules of behavior that minimize damage and...
Allowing the government to place a monetary barrier to allow a protest is equivalent to disallowing (some) protest in all but name.
Yes, yes it is.
But there's an easy out here - If the cause that wants to protest doesn't want excessive bond costs, then if as a group they enforce rules of behavior that minimize damage and costs, then future bonds will be minimal or non-existant.
If they act like asses, the bonds will reflect that.
If the conflict between multiple groups causes the cost, then all permits will be denied on the basis that costs cannot be properly assigned.
Regardless of your views, people do not have the right to act like assholes and expect other people to absorb the costs and clean up after them.
But you can't just allow an arbitrary bond setter to be the decider of who gets free speech. The city/police are there to protect the people, if that requires them spending money to keep the peace...
But you can't just allow an arbitrary bond setter to be the decider of who gets free speech.
The city/police are there to protect the people, if that requires them spending money to keep the peace then that's literally what they are for.
Sure we can. The right to free speech just means that the government can't restrict your speech. I'd argue that residents of a city are not a government (by themselves, they hold no official...
But you can't just allow an arbitrary bond setter to be the decider of who gets free speech.
Sure we can.
The right to free speech just means that the government can't restrict your speech.
I'd argue that residents of a city are not a government (by themselves, they hold no official government standing), thus they have the final say on what is allowed in their cities.
The city/police are there to protect the people, if that requires them spending money to keep the peace then that's literally what they are for.
They are there to protect people, but no law says they (and by extension, taxpayers) have to be on the hook for costs of protests that can reasonably be expected to cause financial damages.
If they want to protest, they need to pay the costs for any disruptions/damages they cause.
A group of local citizens meeting and deciding what is and is not permissible in their city (presumably backed by the force of law, otherwise what's the point?) is almost undoubtedly a form of...
I'd argue that residents of a city are not a government (by themselves, they hold no official government standing), thus they have the final say on what is allowed in their cities.
A group of local citizens meeting and deciding what is and is not permissible in their city (presumably backed by the force of law, otherwise what's the point?) is almost undoubtedly a form of government.
But there's a difference between the government of the city and the people of the city. The people aren't the ones denying them here. It would be the government of the city issuing the permits....
I'd argue that residents of a city are not a government
But there's a difference between the government of the city and the people of the city. The people aren't the ones denying them here. It would be the government of the city issuing the permits. Likewise many of these aren't even the protesters that are rioting. Many times it's other groups showing up to counter or incite violence purposely to make the original group look like they cause violence (antifa at Berkley comes to mind).
For me it's a really difficult thing to justify but I will always side more on the side of letting people say something even if I disagree with it. I feel like the consequences of one are some financial ramifications while the other is liberty being taken. One of these are worse to me.
Yes, but who judges this? Let's say a klansman gets elected to a local council (and given the number of Nazi's running on the R-ticket of late, this doesn't seem that far fetched). Do they now...
But there's an easy out here - If the cause that wants to protest doesn't want excessive bond costs, then if as a group they enforce rules of behavior that minimize damage and costs, then future bonds will be minimal or non-existant.
Yes, but who judges this? Let's say a klansman gets elected to a local council (and given the number of Nazi's running on the R-ticket of late, this doesn't seem that far fetched). Do they now have the power to call their hooded friends, have them start some shit, and then have future protest squashed because they managed to place all the blame on the protesters?
If the conflict between multiple groups causes the cost, then all permits will be denied on the basis that costs cannot be properly assigned.
As I already answered, "A board of local citizens". It could be elected. It could be random. The locals get to decide. I'm not going to get into what-ifs of if a certain group is elected, because...
Yes, but who judges this?
As I already answered, "A board of local citizens". It could be elected. It could be random. The locals get to decide.
I'm not going to get into what-ifs of if a certain group is elected, because in the end, local elections are literally down to the local citizens. Popular/direct vote rules.
when it comes to the government, everyone must have free speech, or no-one can.
You can have all the speech you want, but you're responsible for the costs associated with it.
I refuse to get into this. I don't want to drive this into weeds. I want to stay on topic. A gathering of people (note that I just said citizens, it could even be a randomly chosen group of...
I refuse to get into this. I don't want to drive this into weeds. I want to stay on topic.
A gathering of people (note that I just said citizens, it could even be a randomly chosen group of citizens) does not in any way mean that they are suddenly a government arm, especially one that is subject to the US Constitution's reading of free speech and restrictions thereof.
Did you see this?: You can't control the actions of counter-protestors.
Did you see this?:
Black lives matter protest? Well, just have a couple of hundred Alt-Righter's plan a counter-protest and all of a sudden the cost of the bond is going way up, and the protest is likely shut down.
You can't control the actions of counter-protestors.
I'd say that's working exactly as intended. As children, we were all taught that if we could not get along, that we'd lose the ability to do whatever we were doing. Actions have punishments.
all of a sudden the cost of the bond is going way up, and the protest is likely shut down.
You can't control the actions of counter-protestors.
I'd say that's working exactly as intended.
As children, we were all taught that if we could not get along, that we'd lose the ability to do whatever we were doing.
The point is that if you know the opposing side cannot afford a high bond, you can effectively silence their speech by driving the cost of the bond up. Our current system isn't perfect, but this...
The point is that if you know the opposing side cannot afford a high bond, you can effectively silence their speech by driving the cost of the bond up. Our current system isn't perfect, but this would allow the rich to be able to hire people to basically false flag attack and drive up bond prices for protests they want to prevent. It would also allow groups like the KKK to send threatening messages to make BLM protesters have to pay a lot of money. The opposition isn't shouldering the cost, it's the organizers, so the opposition can do basically whatever they want.
The Victorian government charged Milo Y for the damages when he spoke here. It came to $50,000, which he never paid of course. On the bright side, I doubt he'll be getting back into the country...
The Victorian government charged Milo Y for the damages when he spoke here. It came to $50,000, which he never paid of course. On the bright side, I doubt he'll be getting back into the country when he owes our government fifty grand.
That's a different case, because you can bar Milo Y because he needs a visa to enter the country, which you can deny for virtually any reason. Unfortunately, I'm referring to more local stuff, for...
That's a different case, because you can bar Milo Y because he needs a visa to enter the country, which you can deny for virtually any reason.
Unfortunately, I'm referring to more local stuff, for which visas cannot be used.
And since I can say with virtual certainty that bills after the fact would probably not be paid, that's why I said bonds, which are usually acquired before the event in question.
Fine. Without engaging your arguments (because I refuse to get lost in the weeds), tell me how people can retain the unrestricted right to protest while simultaneously not placing any financial...
Fine. Without engaging your arguments (because I refuse to get lost in the weeds), tell me how people can retain the unrestricted right to protest while simultaneously not placing any financial burden on the protest cities to have to pay to clean up the aftermath?
If you can offer a way that does not burden the local citizens, or taxpayers in general, I'll take it.
If you cannot offer a workable solution, then I'll stick with mine.
Then offer me a solution that retains the right to protest but that does not dump thousands or millions of dollars in costs on taxpayers. The cost is what I object to. Specifically. They...
Your proposal is completely counter intuitive to its supposed goal.
Then offer me a solution that retains the right to protest but that does not dump thousands or millions of dollars in costs on taxpayers.
The cost is what I object to. Specifically.
protests are always going to cost the local and federal governments, as well as taxpayers, money
They shouldn't. We should have a reasonable right to say "You are expected to pay the costs for any messes you create, and we are charging you for that based on past similar content."
If they do a clean protest, the bond is untouched, and they get it back.
As far as the bond possibly being unfair, it could be set by a special committee of random citizens. It's hard to accuse randomness of being unfair.
If the members of a protest are all tax paying citizens exercising their right to assemble, haven't they already "paid" for the costs of cleaning up any messes by paying taxes?
You are expected to pay the costs for any messes you create
If the members of a protest are all tax paying citizens exercising their right to assemble, haven't they already "paid" for the costs of cleaning up any messes by paying taxes?
I think it's a nice idea if the organizers have wealthy benefactors, but the problem is that you are now restricting speech based on how much you can pony up. I doubt that the Washington rally...
I think it's a nice idea if the organizers have wealthy benefactors, but the problem is that you are now restricting speech based on how much you can pony up. I doubt that the Washington rally could have paid for the cost without, say, the Koch brothers stepping in. If a bond isn't paid for, are you just not allowed to march? Or do you not have police protection? Cities wouldn't be allowed to grant exemptions lest they be accused of bias and get sued.
While no bond = no police might sound good for white nationalist rallies, keep in mind the paranoid people who believe that Jews control the government are more likely to bring firearms, and if we go back to the civil rights marches, the Klan would have killed far more if they never had to worry about police being present.
Just like any other permit the government issues - A building-related permit, for example - No bond = No permit. No permit, no march. Mad about that? The group would have only their own past...
Just like any other permit the government issues - A building-related permit, for example - No bond = No permit.
No permit, no march.
Mad about that? The group would have only their own past actions, upon which the bond costs were calculated, to blame.
If the protesters are actually peaceful and have a history of complete pacifism, even when being attacked or threatened, why should they have to shoulder the costs if a group of sov cits/KKK/etc...
If the protesters are actually peaceful and have a history of complete pacifism, even when being attacked or threatened, why should they have to shoulder the costs if a group of sov cits/KKK/etc threaten to disrupt the event? Police protection applies to both protesters and counter-protesters.
Calling it a White-Supremacist Rally is almost absurd — it was a White-Supremacist Gaggle, at best.
I walked the Mall on Sunday to check it out, and couldn't help but laugh. After a year of talking about how Antifa only made them stronger, they managed to wrangle a few dozen people and were outnumbered by a thousand.
$2.6 million spent, at least. Weeks of hype and anxiety. Private Metro car, Police escort.
Total flop. What a shit-show.
I went to the Air & Space Museum instead and had a jolly time. I touched a moon-rock. 8/10 day.
I think technology has pushed a lot of these types into hiding. You can't be open about that stuff as easily today. Imagine getting a picture of you taken in a klan outfit and go into the office Monday with it all over the internet. Which is obviously a good thing because it keeps people away from terrible behavior in a small way.
I feel like it's had the opposite effect as well. The internet and its anonymity has provided a place for neo-nazis to organize and recruit globally in relative safety, even if those benefits don't translate into real world gatherings.
That's true.
Y'know I hadn't really thought about it that way. You're totally right though
"recourse for their actions" this sounds like victim blaming to me. It doesn't matter what someone says their words should never be met with violence. No matter how fucked up stupid and evil they might be.
Technically Hitler never committed any violence, he just said words.
Sorry to pull such a dramatic example on you but you get my meaning, right? It's very easy for real violence to be the consequence of a bad person's ideology and speech.
I think you're in the clear.
Well would you look at that. Thanks, Godwin.
Godwin’s Second Law?
Well I would argue that Hitler shouldn't receive mob justice. Also he committed war crimes so that's wayyyy different.
If Hitler is responsible for the crimes of his soldiers, are figures like Richard Spencer not responsible for the hate crimes of their followers? Sure Richard Spencer doesn't openly give direct orders, but far right figureheads have used dog whistles time and time again to encourage violence, and we've seen that it works, the violence has happened. So are they not responsible?
That may be, but that doesn't mean we could let some guy on the street beat him up or kill him. It should be worked through the legal system and he should be charged with a crime.
Edit: changed first word form they to that. Just a auto correct mistake
Fair enough. I'm not saying he deserves to be killed in the streets either, I just think these situations are a lot more complicated than whether or not the person in question actually pulled a trigger or threw a fist. Words cause violence, so we have to be ready to treat words as violence in certain situations.
My personal opinion on this is kind of... a conflicted shrug. I don't actively want anyone getting beaten in the streets, but if it happens to a neo-nazi, I'm not exactly bothered and I completely understand the motivation behind the actions.
Yeah I understand the shrug response. However I really dislike the precident that would set. It's kinda like Twitter nowadays they have mob justice when someone does something bad but they very often get it wrong and end up ruining someone's life who doesn't deserve it.
Ex. Reddit and the boston bombers and reddit
"I WANT TO KILL ALL OF YOU FUCKING [EXPLETIVE] [EXPLETIVE]S!"
Generally, in most states the above's more than enough for Stand Your Ground laws to come into play, which arguably is persecuting them under the legal system.
(For the record, I don't generally support SYG laws, buuuuuuuuuuut...no harm in using their own laws against them in this context, in my opinion.)
There is definitely harm in using unjust laws to kill someone.
They're the ones who push for the law, so in their eyes it's completely just.
If white supremacists think something is "just" I'm most likely not going to do that thing
Heading or even being involved in an organization that is committing war crimes isn't the same thing as only saying things.
Sometimes the marketplace of ideas just sets money on fire.
I still don't understand how Trump continues to defend these people. I am so so glad nothing broke out like at charllotesville. I know it is his 30% base but come on dude, you aren't back in the 40s
Not to sound too flippant, but it's because he agrees with them.
Every day he makes it more and more obvious. Literally calling Omorsa a dog just like he has with other females. I just hate that we went from obama to this.
I don't personally know him well enough to know if he agrees or just uses them for their vote.
I'm not really sure.
My first gut reaction is that actually believing it is undoubtedly worse. What do you think the consequences are for both? Emboldening the alt? Normalizing it? Raising their numbers? I can see how pretending to follow it could have the same results in those cases. I really have to ask though how much of it is deliberate. I mean we know the move to republican party was deliberate to have a better chance of winning. A lot of other moves were strategically made. But it gets more shakey to place purposeful blame on someone using dog whistle type things when I can't be sure. And I know that's half the strategy around it, I guess I just can't see the end goal for someone like Trump using it as the only thing I can rationalize is if someone was literally trying to make a nazi Germany 2.0.
I fully expect something big to happen on the midterms. With possible deaths.
But I don't think the first violence will come from the right.
Replace "recourse" with "consequences".
I can’t read the article (GDPR fail) but does that mean there were only 26 participants?
In short, unclear...
It's ridiculous that local areas should have the bear the cost of this stuff. Policing, cleaning up after the fact, etc. Even if they have a line in the budget to congress to help pay for it, which just means that we all pay for it.
Those who want to protest should have to put up a bond equal to the average cost of past similar protests before they can get a permit. A board of local citizens can decide what "similar" means, and thus, the resulting bond amount.
This is a ridiculous suggestion and directly against the First Amendment in my view. Allowing the government to place a monetary barrier to allow a protest is equivalent to disallowing (some) protest in all but name.
Imagine if minimum wage workers wanted to protest working conditions, but had to put up a multi-thousand dollar bond to do so. Or the protesters in Ferguson had to fork up $5.7 million (note: I don't know that I trust the Washington Times on this, and can't find their original sources, but if it's only $1 million, does that make much of a difference?). This might be fine for large scale national protests (e.g., the Women's March) where such funds might be raised via Kickstarter or whatever, but this could easily squash any protest at the local level.
Further, if enabled, you would have just given the keys to stop any protest to any opposition you might think up. Black lives matter protest? Well, just have a couple of hundred Alt-Righter's plan a counter-protest and all of a sudden the cost of the bond is going way up, and the protest is likely shut down.
Yes, yes it is.
But there's an easy out here - If the cause that wants to protest doesn't want excessive bond costs, then if as a group they enforce rules of behavior that minimize damage and costs, then future bonds will be minimal or non-existant.
If they act like asses, the bonds will reflect that.
If the conflict between multiple groups causes the cost, then all permits will be denied on the basis that costs cannot be properly assigned.
Regardless of your views, people do not have the right to act like assholes and expect other people to absorb the costs and clean up after them.
But you can't just allow an arbitrary bond setter to be the decider of who gets free speech.
The city/police are there to protect the people, if that requires them spending money to keep the peace then that's literally what they are for.
Sure we can.
The right to free speech just means that the government can't restrict your speech.
I'd argue that residents of a city are not a government (by themselves, they hold no official government standing), thus they have the final say on what is allowed in their cities.
They are there to protect people, but no law says they (and by extension, taxpayers) have to be on the hook for costs of protests that can reasonably be expected to cause financial damages.
If they want to protest, they need to pay the costs for any disruptions/damages they cause.
A group of local citizens meeting and deciding what is and is not permissible in their city (presumably backed by the force of law, otherwise what's the point?) is almost undoubtedly a form of government.
I refuse to go down this rabbit hole.
Ok... just remember that when citizen Trump-supporters outlaw liberal protests, I warned you.
I shall write this down in my book of things to not forget.
But there's a difference between the government of the city and the people of the city. The people aren't the ones denying them here. It would be the government of the city issuing the permits. Likewise many of these aren't even the protesters that are rioting. Many times it's other groups showing up to counter or incite violence purposely to make the original group look like they cause violence (antifa at Berkley comes to mind).
For me it's a really difficult thing to justify but I will always side more on the side of letting people say something even if I disagree with it. I feel like the consequences of one are some financial ramifications while the other is liberty being taken. One of these are worse to me.
Yes, but who judges this? Let's say a klansman gets elected to a local council (and given the number of Nazi's running on the R-ticket of late, this doesn't seem that far fetched). Do they now have the power to call their hooded friends, have them start some shit, and then have future protest squashed because they managed to place all the blame on the protesters?
Once again, allowing protest to be squashed by the opposition, without legal recourse.
I have previously argued against unlimited free-speech on hosting platforms controlled by private companies, but when it comes to the government, everyone must have free speech, or no-one can.
Once the government uses a new power, even if they do so to aid 'your side' it can, and will be used against you.
As I already answered, "A board of local citizens". It could be elected. It could be random. The locals get to decide.
I'm not going to get into what-ifs of if a certain group is elected, because in the end, local elections are literally down to the local citizens. Popular/direct vote rules.
You can have all the speech you want, but you're responsible for the costs associated with it.
You mean... a government?
I refuse to get into this. I don't want to drive this into weeds. I want to stay on topic.
A gathering of people (note that I just said citizens, it could even be a randomly chosen group of citizens) does not in any way mean that they are suddenly a government arm, especially one that is subject to the US Constitution's reading of free speech and restrictions thereof.
Did you see this?:
You can't control the actions of counter-protestors.
I'd say that's working exactly as intended.
As children, we were all taught that if we could not get along, that we'd lose the ability to do whatever we were doing.
Actions have punishments.
The point is that if you know the opposing side cannot afford a high bond, you can effectively silence their speech by driving the cost of the bond up. Our current system isn't perfect, but this would allow the rich to be able to hire people to basically false flag attack and drive up bond prices for protests they want to prevent. It would also allow groups like the KKK to send threatening messages to make BLM protesters have to pay a lot of money. The opposition isn't shouldering the cost, it's the organizers, so the opposition can do basically whatever they want.
The Victorian government charged Milo Y for the damages when he spoke here. It came to $50,000, which he never paid of course. On the bright side, I doubt he'll be getting back into the country when he owes our government fifty grand.
That's a different case, because you can bar Milo Y because he needs a visa to enter the country, which you can deny for virtually any reason.
Unfortunately, I'm referring to more local stuff, for which visas cannot be used.
And since I can say with virtual certainty that bills after the fact would probably not be paid, that's why I said bonds, which are usually acquired before the event in question.
You're right it's a different situation, but I'm just letting you know that some places do have a precedent for a system along these lines.
I understand, thanks.
Fine. Without engaging your arguments (because I refuse to get lost in the weeds), tell me how people can retain the unrestricted right to protest while simultaneously not placing any financial burden on the protest cities to have to pay to clean up the aftermath?
If you can offer a way that does not burden the local citizens, or taxpayers in general, I'll take it.
If you cannot offer a workable solution, then I'll stick with mine.
Then offer me a solution that retains the right to protest but that does not dump thousands or millions of dollars in costs on taxpayers.
The cost is what I object to. Specifically.
They shouldn't. We should have a reasonable right to say "You are expected to pay the costs for any messes you create, and we are charging you for that based on past similar content."
If they do a clean protest, the bond is untouched, and they get it back.
As far as the bond possibly being unfair, it could be set by a special committee of random citizens. It's hard to accuse randomness of being unfair.
If the members of a protest are all tax paying citizens exercising their right to assemble, haven't they already "paid" for the costs of cleaning up any messes by paying taxes?
I think it's a nice idea if the organizers have wealthy benefactors, but the problem is that you are now restricting speech based on how much you can pony up. I doubt that the Washington rally could have paid for the cost without, say, the Koch brothers stepping in. If a bond isn't paid for, are you just not allowed to march? Or do you not have police protection? Cities wouldn't be allowed to grant exemptions lest they be accused of bias and get sued.
While no bond = no police might sound good for white nationalist rallies, keep in mind the paranoid people who believe that Jews control the government are more likely to bring firearms, and if we go back to the civil rights marches, the Klan would have killed far more if they never had to worry about police being present.
Just like any other permit the government issues - A building-related permit, for example - No bond = No permit.
No permit, no march.
Mad about that? The group would have only their own past actions, upon which the bond costs were calculated, to blame.
If the protesters are actually peaceful and have a history of complete pacifism, even when being attacked or threatened, why should they have to shoulder the costs if a group of sov cits/KKK/etc threaten to disrupt the event? Police protection applies to both protesters and counter-protesters.
I'd like to see an historical breakdown of what all ralleys have costs to have some perspective.
That would be interesting.