Maybe he's simply a misunderstood artist.
I'm torn on this, but all of those "defending" the Nazi... if somebody was walking around in ISIS garb and shouting jihad and death to Americans at everybody, would you think it's OK to punch him or would you defend his rights to free speech?
Since you want to talk hypotheticals, if somebody was walking around in Yankees garb and shouting that the Red Sox suck at everybody, would you think it's OK to punch him or would you defends his rights to free speech?
Tell us exactly where Fifth Amendment protection of free speech is waived and it becomes okay to assault someone if you don't like the message. And tell us in a way that doesn't make us laugh at you.
Can we get a little more false equivalency over here?
Last time I check, dressing up and talking like a fool/idiot = legal but punching out someone because he/she was dressing up/talking like a fool/idiot = not legal.
Someone once said something about disapprove of what a person say but will defend his/her right to say so.
Torn on this kind of reaction. On the one hand I am always reminded of the question: If you had a Time Machine and could go back in time to eliminate Hitler, would you?; Then again, just attacking someone like this makes the alleged Nazi/Fascist into an innocent victim of violence.
There are no innocent Nazis.
True, but that's the perception of such an action.There are no innocent Nazis.
Can we get a little more false equivalency over here?
No, it's an exact equivalency, it's just beyond your limited understanding.
Either the Fifth Amendment protects speech or it doesn't. Period. There is no difference between speech you approve of, speech you disapprove of but decide to condone and speech you find offensive. It's all free or none of it is. End of lesson. What part of that do you need explained to you in tiny, easy to understand words?
This is a democracy. Well, a republic actually, but the concept is the same. Anyone has the right to express any opinion and espouse any political ideology. Americans are free to voice support for Nazi-ism, Communism, Sharia Law and even something worse than all of that, Hilary Clinton. And then everyone votes. And if Nazi-ism wins, it's the will of the people. And if it loses, it's just talk with no power behind it and a swastika is no different from any other icon be it a cross, Star of David, hammer and sickle, crescent moon or Yin/Yang. That's the way it works. And again I'll ask, what part of that is beyond your comprehension? Wearing a nazi swastika is legally no different from displaying a cross or a Red Sox t-shirt. It's that simple. It's so simple even you should be able to get it. So why don't you?
No, it's an exact equivalency, it's just beyond your limited understanding.
Either the Fifth Amendment protects speech or it doesn't. Period. There is no difference between speech you approve of, speech you disapprove of but decide to condone and speech you find offensive. It's all free or none of it is. End of lesson. What part of that do you need explained to you in tiny, easy to understand words?
This is a democracy. Well, a republic actually, but the concept is the same. Anyone has the right to express any opinion and espouse any political ideology. Americans are free to voice support for Nazi-ism, Communism, Sharia Law and even something worse than all of that, Hilary Clinton. And then everyone votes. And if Nazi-ism wins, it's the will of the people. And if it loses, it's just talk with no power behind it and a swastika is no different from any other icon be it a cross, Star of David, hammer and sickle, crescent moon or Yin/Yang. That's the way it works. And again I'll ask, what part of that is beyond your comprehension? Wearing a nazi swastika is legally no different from displaying a cross or a Red Sox t-shirt. It's that simple. It's so simple even you should be able to get it. So why don't you?
No, it's an exact equivalency, it's just beyond your limited understanding.
Either the Fifth Amendment protects speech or it doesn't. Period. There is no difference between speech you approve of, speech you disapprove of but decide to condone and speech you find offensive. It's all free or none of it is. End of lesson. What part of that do you need explained to you in tiny, easy to understand words?
This is a democracy. Well, a republic actually, but the concept is the same. Anyone has the right to express any opinion and espouse any political ideology. Americans are free to voice support for Nazi-ism, Communism, Sharia Law and even something worse than all of that, Hilary Clinton. And then everyone votes. And if Nazi-ism wins, it's the will of the people. And if it loses, it's just talk with no power behind it and a swastika is no different from any other icon be it a cross, Star of David, hammer and sickle, crescent moon or Yin/Yang. That's the way it works. And again I'll ask, what part of that is beyond your comprehension? Wearing a nazi swastika is legally no different from displaying a cross or a Red Sox t-shirt. It's that simple. It's so simple even you should be able to get it. So why don't you?
No, it's an exact equivalency, it's just beyond your limited understanding.
Either the Fifth Amendment protects speech or it doesn't. Period. There is no difference between speech you approve of, speech you disapprove of but decide to condone and speech you find offensive. It's all free or none of it is. End of lesson. What part of that do you need explained to you in tiny, easy to understand words?
No, it's an exact equivalency, it's just beyond your limited understanding.
Either the Fifth Amendment protects speech or it doesn't. Period. There is no difference between speech you approve of, speech you disapprove of but decide to condone and speech you find offensive. It's all free or none of it is. End of lesson. What part of that do you need explained to you in tiny, easy to understand words?
This is a democracy. Well, a republic actually, but the concept is the same. Anyone has the right to express any opinion and espouse any political ideology. Americans are free to voice support for Nazi-ism, Communism, Sharia Law and even something worse than all of that, Hilary Clinton. And then everyone votes. And if Nazi-ism wins, it's the will of the people. And if it loses, it's just talk with no power behind it and a swastika is no different from any other icon be it a cross, Star of David, hammer and sickle, crescent moon or Yin/Yang. That's the way it works. And again I'll ask, what part of that is beyond your comprehension? Wearing a nazi swastika is legally no different from displaying a cross or a Red Sox t-shirt. It's that simple. It's so simple even you should be able to get it. So why don't you?
Last time I check, dressing up and talking like a fool/idiot = legal but punching out someone because he/she was dressing up/talking like a fool/idiot = not legal.
Someone once said something about disapprove of what a person say but will defend his/her right to say so.
Trump was wrong, obviously, but so are you. Anything nazi related is illegal in my country, and you can even go to prison for denying the holocaust. But free speech rights aren't relevant. Why's it so hard to understand the government monopoly on violence? Even if he weren't allowed to wear that it would then be up to LE. Can't go around punching people. This is a political argument and a defense of law not nazis. Also, #magaI love people here complaining Nazi's not getting their free speech and the violence were silent when Trump called for beating up protestors.
Since you want to talk hypotheticals, if somebody was walking around in Yankees garb and shouting that the Red Sox suck at everybody, would you think it's OK to punch him or would you defends his rights to free speech?
Tell us exactly where Fifth Amendment protection of free speech is waived and it becomes okay to assault someone if you don't like the message. And tell us in a way that doesn't make us laugh at you.
Trump was wrong, obviously, but so are you. Anything nazi related is illegal in my country, and you can even go to prison for denying the holocaust. But free speech rights aren't relevant. Why's it so hard to understand the government monopoly on violence? Even if he weren't allowed to wear that it would then be up to LE. Can't go around punching people. This is a political argument and a defense of law not nazis. Also, #maga
It's that simple when it comes to legality. Forget the First (not Fifth!) Amendment for the moment. That only applies to government action. We're talking about actions by private citizens here. Punching someone is a battery, a crime. We live in a society based on the rule of law. So anyone assaulting someone should be prosecuted. Which doesn't mean that punching a Nazi is the same thing as punching a Yankees fan from a moral standpoint. Not all crimes are created equal in the sense of morality.
I think someone punching a Nazi should be prosecuted. It doesn't mean I have any sympathy for the Nazi whatsoever, nor does it mean I have as negative a feeling about the person punching him as I do someone committing an assault for another reason. Nor am I worried that the First Amendment is in peril because a private citizen punches a Nazi. What would imperil it is if the police arrest the Nazi for saying bad things. The citizen punching the Nazi just signals society's disapproval of Nazism. So long as the state isn't going to prosecute people for offensive political speech, and IS going to prosecute anyone using violence against the offensive speaker, democracy comes out just fine.