Alt-Right "Free Speech" Protest Accepts Failure in Boston

[leibowde84]

Over 20,000 protesters showed up in response to a relatively tiny showing by the Alt-Right. No violence, and the showing makes it clear that the racism, white nationalism, and hatred from the Alt-Right is vastly outnumbered in this country. This is exactly what should happen every time the Alt-Right tries to hold a protest. 20,000 decent minded people should show up and show them that any protest based on white nationalism will be met with ridicule. Free speech in action!! Bravo!

 

[bobhikes]

Over 20,000 protesters showed up in response to a relatively tiny showing by the Alt-Right. No violence, and the showing makes it clear that the racism, white nationalism, and hatred from the Alt-Right is vastly outnumbered in this country. This is exactly what should happen every time the Alt-Right tries to hold a protest. 20,000 decent minded people should show up and show them that any protest based on white nationalism will be met with ridicule. Free speech in action!! Bravo!

It would be better if they were ignored. Those few people no doubt feel more empowered, they can force people to change there normal activities just by getting together and talking. No one learned anything from the gathering. It cost the town of Boston quite a few dollars.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would be better if they were ignored. Those few people no doubt feel more empowered, they can force people to change there normal activities just by getting together and talking. No one learned anything from the gathering. It cost the town of Boston quite a few dollars.

No violence?
Dang, that'll take the wind out of their sails.

 

[idav]

Over 20,000 protesters showed up in response to a relatively tiny showing by the Alt-Right. No violence, and the showing makes it clear that the racism, white nationalism, and hatred from the Alt-Right is vastly outnumbered in this country. This is exactly what should happen every time the Alt-Right tries to hold a protest. 20,000 decent minded people should show up and show them that any protest based on white nationalism will be met with ridicule. Free speech in action!! Bravo!

Boston has too much rich history in intellectualism to be bugged by the likes of racists.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It would be better if they were ignored. Those few people no doubt feel more empowered, they can force people to change there normal activities just by getting together and talking. No one learned anything from the gathering. It cost the town of Boston quite a few dollars.

Ignoring them does not work. Failing to speak out does not work. The only thing worse than not challenging the far right is supporting them. Not sure how 20 Nazis would end up feeling empowered after being surrounded by tens of thousands.

 

[Kemosloby]

Who will die first, Elvis or Hitler? What is white nationalism?

 

[bobhikes]

Ignoring them does not work. Failing to speak out does not work. The only thing worse than not challenging the far right is supporting them. Not sure how 20 Nazis would end up feeling empowered after being surrounded by tens of thousands.

I would disagree, ignoring them if they are just speaking will work very well. When ignored it discourages you. If they take it up a notch with violence of any kind then they should be squashed but a simple march or speech accomplishes nothing if no one listens or watches. It only takes one to feel empowered to incite violence like the kind of driving a car into a group of people and then we have a problem.

 

[shmogie]

Over 20,000 protesters showed up in response to a relatively tiny showing by the Alt-Right. No violence, and the showing makes it clear that the racism, white nationalism, and hatred from the Alt-Right is vastly outnumbered in this country. This is exactly what should happen every time the Alt-Right tries to hold a protest. 20,000 decent minded people should show up and show them that any protest based on white nationalism will be met with ridicule. Free speech in action!! Bravo!

Yes, you are totally correct. The alt. right is just a new name for neo nazi's. A mode of thinking in direct opposition to what America stands for. You might, using the same descriptive system, label antifa and blm as the alt.left. They want to control free speech. To them, hateful words, or words with which they disagree need to be silenced. They use violence as their tool to do so. A university Conservative club invites a speaker that they the thugs don't approve ( any a Conservative club would invite) and because of their very violent track record, university administrators cave to their blackmail, and deny the 1st amendment right of free speech, just as the thugs want to do. Personally, on a fantasy plane, I would like to see all the neo nazi's and kkkers, locked into the huge rose bowl with the antifa blm thugs, all having AK-47's to shoot it out. When they are all dead, or the ammo has run out, any left should be thrown in jail. Neither extreme has anything to offer America but heartache and pain. Ah, well, very, very few of my fantasies have come true, I doubt this one will either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Boston has too much rich history in intellectualism to be bugged by the likes of racists.

?
!

 

[leibowde84]

It would be better if they were ignored. Those few people no doubt feel more empowered, they can force people to change there normal activities just by getting together and talking. No one learned anything from the gathering. It cost the town of Boston quite a few dollars.

Sure it did. It made sure that the alt-right knows it cannot hold any more rallies without expecting and dealing with tens of thousands of counter-protesters.

 

[icehorse]

I think there is a potentially important mistake in this thread. The "Boston Free Speech Coalition" is not "alt right" it has been described instead as "alt lite", and I believe the two should not be conflated. (Also, it's not clear that the BFSC would describe themselves as alt-lite.)

Now you can choose whether to take the group at their word, but this is what they claim to stand for:

Boston Free Speech Coalition: “(we are), a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents” that is willing to “peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties...”We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa (militant leftists) movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence.’’

The alt-lite is characterized as being critical of: PCness, Islam, feminism, welfare, and illegal immigration.

If so, then the tens of thousands of counter-protesters - IMO - screwed up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, you are totally correct. The alt. right is just a new name for neo nazi's. A mode of thinking in direct opposition to what America stands for.

Can't find fault with that. We need to recognize and promote the core American values.

You might, using the same descriptive system, label antifa and blm as the alt.left. They want to control free speech. To them, hateful words, or words with which they disagree need to be silenced. They use violence as their tool to do so.

Yes, violence is an unacceptable way of dealing with those with whom you disagree

I would like to see all the neo nazi's and kkkers, locked into the huge rose bowl with the antifa blm thugs, all having AK-47's to shoot it out. When they are all dead, or the ammo has run out, any left should be thrown in jail.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by free speech and what America stands for.

Incidentally, as I understand it, ordinary citizens have no duty to facilitate nor not to inhibit any speech they don't like by any lawful means. If they want to prevent somebody from speaking or being heard, that is as much their right as is that of the speaker to try to be heard.

If you want to speak in public and have a message that is so unpopular that it draws crowds to oppose you and shut you down, you need to find another venue to express yourself. Try a web page.

And if your message is so toxic that you have trouble finding a server willing to host your site, then that's fine, too. It's all good as long as it is lawful.

The existing system is working fine. The neo-nazis have gotten their message across. We know what they believe and advocate. What more are they entitled to? A chance to march without being jeered or shouted down?

 

[bobhikes]

Sure it did. It made sure that the alt-right knows it cannot hold any more rallies without expecting and dealing with tens of thousands of counter-protesters.

They want the protester's, they want to incite anger, that's why they did it. I read the articles and watched the news, Boston was better prepared and the police force did an excellent job. Without the police or a lessor effort the outcome would of been the same as charl0ttesville.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sure it did. It made sure that the alt-right knows it cannot hold any more rallies without expecting and dealing with tens of thousands of counter-protesters.

Agreed. The counter-protesters send a counter message, and in large enough numbers, depict the protesters as a lunatic fringe minority out of step with American values, greatly outnumbered, and unwelcome.

This should be coupled to public shaming via the Internet. Photograph the protesters and post their pictures asking for help identifying them. Then, publish their names and photos so that their bosses, coworkers and other acquaintances, friends and families know exactly what kind of a person it is that they know. If they want to take a racist stand, let them not be able to hide using the anonymity of a crowd.

 

[shmogie]

Can't find fault with that. We need to recognize and promote the core American values.



Yes, violence is an unacceptable way of dealing with those with whom you disagree



I guess I misunderstood what you meant by free speech and what America stands for.

Incidentally, as I understand it, ordinary citizens have no duty to facilitate nor not to inhibit any speech they don't like by any lawful means. If they want to prevent somebody from speaking or being heard, that is as much their right as is that of the speaker to try to be heard.

If you want to speak in public and have a message that is so unpopular that it draws crowds to oppose you and shut you down, you need to find another venue to express yourself. Try a web page.

And if your message is so toxic that you have trouble finding a server willing to host your site, then that's fine, too. It's all good as long as it is lawful.

The existing system is working fine. The neo-nazis have gotten their message across. We know what they believe and advocate. What more are they entitled to? A chance to march without being jeered or shouted down?

You are mostly right. However, if free speech is shouted down by violence or intimidation in a controlled environment, e.g. a university auditorium where a speaker of a particular view has been invited, then free speech is denied. This is called the veto of the mob. The naziś or blm have no right to march and speak in public without others having the right to counter them.

 

[icehorse]

You are mostly right. However, if free speech is shouted down by violence or intimidation in a controlled environment, e.g. a university auditorium where a speaker of a particular view has been invited, then free speech is denied. This is called the veto of the mob. The naziś or blm have no right to march and speak in public without others having the right to counter them.

You're making an interesting distinction here, in other words:

speaking in a "controlled environment" vs. speaking "in public".

This feels intuitively correct, is there some more official basis for this distinction? I bring this up because I'm seeing a lot of "veto of the mob" recently - in many situations - and I'd like to know what and where this is legal and where it's not. Also I guess, where it's healthy and where it's not.

 

[shmogie]

You're making an interesting distinction here, in other words:

speaking in a "controlled environment" vs. speaking "in public".

This feels intuitively correct, is there some more official basis for this distinction? I bring this up because I'm seeing a lot of "veto of the mob" recently - in many situations - and I'd like to know what and where this is legal and where it's not. Also I guess, where it's healthy and where it's not.

Public space, i.e. not private property, is open to all equally. Private property, or public property under a specific controlling body can have specific speakers of a certain ideaology as they choose. They can deny access to those obviously bent on disruption, or throw them out if they disrupt. They may have gatherings of model plane clubs, or blm thugs, as they choose. These gatherings would also have the right of free speech, without being stormed or disrupted by opposing forces

 

[Jedster]

No violence?
Dang, that'll take the wind out of their sails.

..alternatively, a little cleansing

 

[Revoltingest]

..alternatively, a little cleansing

Oh, if only life were as idyllic as in the Blues Brothers.....