4 ms·

Your facts argue against your point. In your words, a city, the government itself, tried to block the "Unite the Right" rally. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter "wa

by Sacho 7y ago

Your facts argue against your point. In your words, a city, the government itself, tried to block the "Unite the Right" rally. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter "was treated with far more disdain"(presumably by private actors exercising their own freedom of speech - not government actors?). It sounds like there was plenty of disdain for the "Unite the Right" rally as well - I can't imagine what else would lead a city to break the law in an attempt to block it. I'm not sure what outcome you would have wanted from the situation - the government should have further tried to supress people against BLM? Who's the minority power in your scenario again?

fzeroracer 7y ago
No, my facts argue in favor of my point. Which is that the policing apparatus in America functions to serve those that are already in power. That was the point of my comparison, because white supremacist rallies tend to be treated very well by the police with violence committed by the rally members allowed to go unchecked, while others are met with immediate violence by the state and a zealous show of force from the police. Which again, is easily proven by the fact that higher government institutions have placed a focus on dealing with Black Identity Extremists rather than White Supremacy. And in this case the city didn't 'break the law', they were attempting to move the rally to another location (rightfully) believing that it would pose a severe security risk. Which led to the challenge by the ACLU on the grounds of the first amendment and an emergency injunction being put in place to allow the rally to occur at the original location. Unless you honestly believe that black identity extremists are somehow more dangerous than white supremacists at this time, it's obvious that one group benefits a lot more from 'freedom of speech' than another.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deogeo 7y ago
  > Which is that the policing apparatus in America functions to serve those that are already in power. What makes you believe censorship laws won't also serve those in power?

by Sacho 7y ago

fzeroracer 7y ago

No, my facts argue in favor of my point. Which is that the policing apparatus in America functions to serve those that are already in power. That was the point of my comparison, because white supremacist rallies tend to be treated very well by the police with violence committed by the rally members allowed to go unchecked, while others are met with immediate violence by the state and a zealous show of force from the police. Which again, is easily proven by the fact that higher government institutions have placed a focus on dealing with Black Identity Extremists rather than White Supremacy. And in this case the city didn't 'break the law', they were attempting to move the rally to another location (rightfully) believing that it would pose a severe security risk. Which led to the challenge by the ACLU on the grounds of the first amendment and an emergency injunction being put in place to allow the rally to occur at the original location. Unless you honestly believe that black identity extremists are somehow more dangerous than white supremacists at this time, it's obvious that one group benefits a lot more from 'freedom of speech' than another.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deogeo 7y ago
> Which is that the policing apparatus in America functions to serve those that are already in power. What makes you believe censorship laws won't also serve those in power?