Summary
A group displaying swastika flags on an I-75 overpass in Evendale, Ohio, was confronted by local residents, leading to tensions and a heavy police presence.
Residents pushed past police, seized a flag, and forced the demonstrators to retreat into a U-Haul truck.
Officials, including Cincinnati’s mayor and Hamilton County’s sheriff, condemned the demonstration.
The Jewish Federation and NAACP also spoke out, questioning where the demonstrators came from. The NAACP suggested the current administration’s policies may have emboldened the group.
No arrests were made.
Hate speech, fighting words, and word that cause dangerous situations, (think yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater) are specifically not covered by the US version of Freedom of Speech.
No arrests were made because the thugs with badges don’t arrest their coworkers.
Ok, that’s some bullshit, because they have ruled that causing a panic is illegal. Schenck v. United States, 1919.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47
The law is fucking imaginary.
It’s a different thing, I’m talking about hate speech specifically
You can do hate speech as much as you want in the US, if you threaten someone with violence or incite people to be violent with others it’s something else and so is causing a panic by screaming “FIRE!” in a theater when there’s no fire.
Three different things, one of them is legal and is what was done by the Nazis in that article.
The end goal of hate speech is violence, what’s special about the US is that violence targeted specifically against marginalized groups is condoned if not encouraged.
So yes, hate speech that threatens violence against a marginalized group is legal in the US. I.E. Nazis.
Yea but not really though…
You can say “I hate Nazis” and that’s hate speech (as stupid as that might sound), but it doesn’t mean “I want to hurt/kill Nazis”, the intention behind the message isn’t stated therefore the message is lawful.
If you don’t want to punch Nazis you’re probably a bad person.
I understood what you were saying. I get the technicality. I was venting that the technicality is bullshit when there is already a precedent that kinda says the opposite.
But the precedent doesn’t really apply here…
