"Inconvievable!" - the usual myth bombers"

Not inconceivable. At least not to the author. He's the 1 in 10,000,000 case, according to doctors.

"What's truly sad is that one day, when a vaccine has finally been adequately circulated but a million Americans are dead, Trumpers will actually claim he was right."

You're cute.

What if there is no vaccine?

And even with the flu, for which there is a vaccine, it still infects and estimated 35 million Americans each year, resulting in hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and tens of thousands of deaths.

I feel like you think you can hunker down and wait this one out. I hope you're right.

"Neither do you, unless you support shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater."

Which is kinda like my preferred example of the air traffic controller directing an aircraft to descend to an altitude below high terrain.

I think you can discern the difference...I think you'll choose not to. Ultimately because you're scrounging for a reason to deny someone you disagree with their 1st amendment rights.

"Sharia Law is a political view. Should Sharia Law be allowed?"

Yes.

Trying to convince people that Sharia would be a good thing is very different than making you accept it by force.

But I feel like you and Snoofy, Dan, and Corky are all tapdancing. I think it's because in your mind, political views you disagree with should not be allowed, even if the groups are non-violent.

In which case, you don't support free speech. That's OK...but just be honest about it.

"Threats of violence and incitement are "bad speech" and are prohibited."

Agreed.

So which groups in Portland are threatening violence and incitement? I'll give you a hint-they like to put nails on their fireworks before throwing them at cops.

"Same with dissemination of child pornography"

And snuff films. Don't forget those. But it has less to do with the material than the people who harmed in the creation of the material. You're a lawyer, so you would know better than me, but animated or CG snuff films, kiddie porn wouldn't be illegal.

"I guess you did miss that part."

People like to use the "yelling fire" example. For me, a better one would be an Air Traffic Controller who clears an aircraft down to an altitude that's lower than high terrain. That's not covered by free speech either. I feel like it shouldn't be explained to you why that is.

"Thanks for proving my point."

So do you think the rioters are right-wingers?

Do you have something to substantiate that?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some right wing agitators out there...but you seem to be implying that the majority are right-wingers. And if you do, then like me, you should be asking why the Law Enforcement is not actively trying to flesh out this network. Becuase like I said, I don't care if they're on the left or the right, they're criminals who are hovering very close to being terrorists. Not because of their beliefs, but because of their actions.

"Bull. I asked you directly how many protestors in Portland were rioters, and your answer was ALL of them."

Then I misunderstood or misinterpreted your question.

There are many protesters currently in Portland. Most seem to be intent on remaining non-violent.

"I have some silly aviation aloha shirts, it's been a thing for a long time."

As do I.

Once upon a time, it was common for aviators to throw tropical themed parties wearing Hawaiian shirts decked out with bombers.

Cue Dan, Snoofy, and Corky to demand that the DoD ban this practice immediately. There's no place in this country for things that offend them.

"The right to yell "fire", the right to bear shoulder-to-air missiles...need I go on?"

I think you're having a senior moment.

"Of course it matters. The guys in the Hawaiian shirts believe you're too dumb to realize they threw the bottles, yet you'll blame the folks who didn't."

I'll say it again, in case you missed it the first time:

"Whatever group it is that's throwing fireworks at cops is a threat to public safety. It doesn't matter if they're left wing agitators, right wing agitators pretending to be left wing agitators, or something else entirely. They need to be crushed."

"Nonsense. You've called all protesters rioters. That exposes your bias."

No, I've called rioters rioters.

You didn't once hear me call the Proud Boys rioters, because they weren't rioting. I'm not even sure they were protesting.

And it's not really me calling them rioters, it's the Portland Police, every night they declare a riot. Which happened again tonight (29 Sept).

"How does that not matter, especially if you're dead wrong?"

Because unlike you, I don't give a ---- about their ideology. If they are right-wingers...I don't think they are but if they are, you treat them no differently than you would if they were a left wing group. You infiltrate, collect, build out the network. Eventually you'll be able to determine who is aligned with who...and who isn't.

"You don't know that it's not."

I don't know that it's not. And it really doesn't matter.

Whatever group it is that's throwing fireworks at cops is a threat to public safety. It doesn't matter if they're left wing agitators, right wing agitators pretending to be left wing agitators, or something else entirely. They need to be crushed.

That's the difference between myself and most of the hand-wringers on this site. I don't view one's political ideology as being the justification for bad behavior.

"You missed the part where the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment have to be balanced against other guaranteed rights."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So...here's the first amendment.

What other "guaranteed rights" are being abridged when a group conducts a peaceful assembly?

"Is what really scares you silly."

Me?

You're the one who has spent the last few minutes arguing against free speech.

Or at least the free speech that you don't like.

"Why it doesn't concern you is... unsurprising."

Oh, no sir.

if it were skinheads downtown throwing IEDs and shooting lasers at cops, I'd be equally upset.

I just don't get why you're not. The only thing I can conclude is that you've sided with them.

"And that fact is in no way a creeping death of Free Speech."

And that in no way is like a rally full of socialists talking about socialist stuff.

But you know that.

Link to the full Orwell piece:

"Your concern about antifascists and your total lack thereof about actual fascists has long been noted."

As has your lack of concern.

I guess throwing IEDs and shooting lasers at police officers is OK? It doesn't seem to bother you too much.

Would it bother you if it were "fascists" throwing IEDs and shooting lasers at cops?

"In the same way that Nazism is not the same thing as freedom."

So, it appears that you're making the claim that freedom of speech should be measured against the contents of the speech itself.

Would it follow that bad free speech be prohibited?

Did I miss that part of the 1st amendment?

onservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or Fascist-minded'. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism'.

Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.

Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet rgimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a Fascist country'. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.

Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.

Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;

War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.

Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term Fascist' to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People's Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as Fascist-minded' or natural Fascists'. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.

Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.

"You'd rather focus on a handful of overzealous antifascists in one city than the real national threat of domestic terrorism by actual fascists."

fascists, huh?

George Orwell: "What is Fascism?"

Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: What is Fascism?'

One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from pure democracy' to pure diabolism'. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian rgimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.

It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships.

Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term Fascism' to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people " certainly no political party or organized body of any kind " which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term Fascist'. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words Fascist in sympathy', or of Fascist tendency', or just plain Fascist', applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:

"I'm saying what I said, one group is much more dangerous to our nation than the other and much more widespread and influential , according to the experts."

Did I argue with that?

Like I said, I don't care what their beliefs are. If they represent a threat to the safety and security of this country, then it is the role the nation's security apparatus to collect and monitor them.

And that includes your overzealous anti-fascists who will inevitably riot again tonight in Portland.

"Free speech" is not really the same thing as chanting Nazi slogans."

Really?

How is it different?

Is it just National Socialist slogans that are off-limits, or would all socialist slogans fall under the "not free speech" banner.

#222

If Trump wasn't an elected official, it's unlikely he would qualify for a security clearance...assuming that he actually is carrying the debt as implied by the article.

But, if you're an elected official, you can be doing coke off of hookers and you'll still get the keys to the kingdom.

Chomsky, in case you didn't know, is fairly well known for his left-wing views. He was recently signatory to a statement in Harper's magazine criticizing cancel culture. And it was those on the left who went after him.

Chomsky is well-known for his defense of free speech-even speech he did not like or agree with. He once defended a Holocaust denier's right to speak.

George Orwell, a similarly committed socialist, was also known for defending free speech.

I don't know that either gentleman would find a warm welcome in today's left. I guess we could add you to Chomsky's list of people who aren't in favor of free speech.