Trump II

[James Clark]

No, we are not clear. I stand by my argument in full seriousness and I reject the logic in the cartoon. I am writing this at work and have no time to extrapolate, but I will at some point.

By your logic, then, isn't anyone that's protesting anything guilty in your eyes?  We've discussed this before - you and I are fairly closely aligned on the primacy of the right to expression, but let's not get caught up in the idea that the expression of white supremacists urging ethnic purity (or even cleansing) ought not be challenged.   We're promised that the government shall not restrict our expression without crossing avery high bar.   We're not guaranteed a public platform for ideas most people find abhorrent.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

We're promised that the government shall not restrict our expression without crossing avery high bar.   We're not guaranteed a public platform for ideas most people find abhorrent.

Indeed, that's what many do not understand. Constitutions limit the powers of the Government.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

By your logic, then, isn't anyone that's protesting anything guilty in your eyes?... We're not guaranteed a public platform for ideas most people find abhorrent.

No, not anyone. My distinction is clear: protesting is ok, violently shutting down another group's protest is not. And yes, we are guaranteed a public platform. Register with the authorities, get approved location (public) and you should be free to exercise your right to free speech publicly, without the fear of being violently attacked. Just like Muslim Supremacist are doing in Europe, and nobody here (or there) protested that, let alone violently.

[James Clark]

So you were concerned that people like Kyle Sean Chapman aka “Based Stickman”, Joe Biggs, and a few other Alt-Right types, would be challenged (by 40,000 peaceful counter protesters) about their constitutional free (hate)speech contribution to an Alt-right Ralley? If so, then I apologize for not recognizing your true intentions, giving a podium to White Supremacists. The crystal ball apparently was still suffering (tear gas and smoke) from the Charlottesville events.

Cheers,
Bart

In Slobodan's defense, it's right to be concerned that about infringement on speech that others find objectionable, both morally and Constitutionally/legally.   What I find perplexing is the idea that the much larger crowd that favors alternative (to the alt-right) ideas is somehow more at fault.   Somehow the folks that are not ok with advancing racial purity nonsense are more offensive than those that stand against it. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Indeed, that's what many do not understand. Constitutions limit the powers of the Government.

Once again, you resort to a condescending tone. It is not that we do not understand, it is that we have a different, broader, conceptual view on the freedom of speech, different than that narrow, technical focus on the government.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In Slobodan's defense, it's right to be concerned that about infringement on speech that others find objectionable, both morally and Constitutionally/legally.   What I find perplexing is the idea that the much larger crowd that favors alternative (to the alt-right) ideas is somehow more at fault.   Somehow the folks that are not ok with advancing racial purity nonsense are more offensive than those that stand against it. 

Thanks for the defense.

And yes, I consider it more at fault, exponentially so. I see far more danger from the violence for democracy, precisely because it is "the much larger group"  (revolutions need masses). KKK et al are fringe groups, a tiny minority, morally and otherwise discredited long time ago, which should be simply ignored.

EDIT: I re-read your argument and noticed that I need to make a distinction. I am talking about violence, not simply "favoring alternative."

[digitaldog]

 As Linda Holmes of NPR wrote in 2010, “The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. … Because the ‘free’ in that concept means ‘free from government interference,’ not ‘free from consequences'.

As to Jeff's behavior at the Epson Print Academy, IF accurate: he should be applauded for his foresight of character (or lack thereof) 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I apologize for not recognizing your true intentions, giving a podium to White Supremacists...

No need to apologize, you got it (almost) right. My intention is not that I should be the one to give a podium to them, but my intention is to respect their constitutional and legal right to get one when properly applying and getting it. Doing so is much more important for democracy, and negating that is much more dangerous, than anything they have to say at that podium.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Once again, you resort to a condescending tone. It is not that we do not understand, it is that we have a different, broader, conceptual view on the freedom of speech, different than that narrow, technical focus on the government.

Constitutions limit what the government can forbid with respect to free speech of its citizens. What he citizens say can still be morally repulsive, e.g. inciting hatred, and unlawful (depending on jurisdiction).

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and also not meant as condescending:
Free Speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[5] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

Cheers,
Bart

[James Clark]

Thanks for the defense.

And yes, I consider it more at fault, exponentially so. I see far more danger from the violence for democracy, precisely because it is "the much larger group"  (revolutions need masses). KKK et al are fringe groups, a tiny minority, morally and otherwise discredited long time ago, which should be simply ignored.

EDIT: I re-read your argument and noticed that I need to make a distinction. I am talking about violence, not simply "favoring alternative."

And I would agree with you 100% on that point.  Violence in the repression of expression - no matter how vile the expression, is an immediate threat to the core concepts of this country and should never be tolerated.  (This isn't the thread for it really, but I will say that I do, sometimes, understand it, even if I don't think it's right.)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And back to the regular programming.

Wisconsin lawmakers vote to pay Foxconn $3 billion to get new factory
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/wisconsin-lawmakers-vote-to-pay-foxconn-3-billion-to-get-new-factory/

QUOTE  "[...]  Democratic opponents of the deal have pointed out that paying $3 billion to get 3,000 jobs means the state subsidy amounts to around $1 million per job.

That's $66,600 per employee for each of the next 15 years, according to an analysis by Prof. Michael Hicks, an economics professor at Ball State University who opposes the deal. Foxconn will pay the workers an average of just over $53,000 per year. (Those numbers are based on the initial count of 3,000 workers.)

"Voters might wish to ask just why each Wisconsin household is stuck with a nearly $1,200 bill to subsidize a company that is half as productive as Wal-Mart, and one-tenth as productive as Harley-Davidson," writes Hicks in an op-ed for MarketWatch. "It is an over-the-top bad deal for Wisconsin."

However, the full $3 billion in incentives only becomes available if Foxconn ends up creating 13,000 jobs. But there's no ironclad guarantee in the deal that Foxconn even meets its 3,000 job promise, so the opponents' "$1 million per job" argument could be true if the factory only ends up employing 1,500 people or fewer.

Even if the plant never expands beyond 3,000 jobs, though, Foxconn will get $1.35 billion for building the plant. Assuming even the beginning stages of the deal come together, Wisconsin will be paying $500,000 worth of incentives per job."


Is that the Art of the Deal in action? Subsidizing and let the taxpayer pay for it?

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Subsidizing and let the taxpayer pay for it?

I do not know other details of the deal, but economic investments, even if fully or over-subsidized, have what is known as a multiplier effect, i.e., growing a local economy (or broader) much more than just providing $53,000 a year to an individual.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I do not know other details of the deal, but economic investments, even if fully or over-subsidized, have what is known as a multiplier effect, i.e., growing a local economy (or broader) much more than just providing $53,000 a year to an individual.

Yes, I'm sure the average people of Wisconsin are overjoyed by the prospect of getting some(?) of their money back. BTW, Foxconn seems to have a poor track record of living up to their promises. And who cares about the environmental rules (for waste disposal) that will be lifted as part of the deal.

Cheers,
Bart

[Schewe]

My distinction is clear: protesting is ok, violently shutting down another group's protest is not. And yes, we are guaranteed a public platform. Register with the authorities, get approved location (public) and you should be free to exercise your right to free speech publicly, without the fear of being violently attacked.

In Boston nearly 40k people peacfully marched in protest of hatred and bigotry-even the president was impressed. About 30 wingnutz were arrested-after the peaceful protesters were generally done and leaving. So what part of that violently shut down the "free speech" rally? It didn't. The violence was by a few anarchists against the police.

 So your premise is wrong 40k people peacefully excersied their free speech any nobdy's rights were abridged.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In Boston nearly 40k people peacfully marched in protest of hatred and bigotry-even the president was impressed. About 30 wingnutz were arrested-after the peaceful protesters were generally done and leaving. So what part of that violently shut down the "free speech" rally? It didn't. The violence was by a few anarchists against the police.

 So your premise is wrong 40k people peacefully excersied their free speech any nobdy's rights were abridged.

Ok, let's see...

I was basing my comments solely on your post that contained the following statements (some yours, some quoted - bold mine):

- "Free Speech Rally" demonstrators disbanded early from Boston Common after they were confronted by thousands of counterprotesters
- 27 arrests
- counter protester trying to grab a Trump supporter's flag out of her hand... she did fall down in the grass
- rally attendees were escorted from Parkman Bandstand by police and placed into police vehicles "for their own safety.

So, once again, solely based on your post, my conclusion was that the original protests were shut down forcefully, either violently ("27 arrests") or in fear of violence ("for their own safety").

There was nothing in your original post to clarify that "About 30 wingnutz were arrested-after the peaceful protesters were generally done and leaving."

The whole episode, even if the majority of the 40,000 were peaceful protesters (kudos to them), raises the question why was it then necessary for the police to escort the original protesters out, "for their own safety"?

[Robert Roaldi]

(Off topic but here's an article about the limits of free speech in the US: http://news.psu.edu/story/341896/2015/01/27/research/probing-question-are-there-limits-freedom-speech. I didn't want to start a new thread, although others may want to do so, but a reference to the topic seemed in order.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Whatever limits there are, it is for the courts to determine and police to enforce, not mob, however lofty its ideals might be.

[Farmer]

Once again, you resort to a condescending tone. It is not that we do not understand, it is that we have a different, broader, conceptual view on the freedom of speech, different than that narrow, technical focus on the government.

That's hardly a condescending tone, Slobo.  Bart's right that it's demonstrably the case that many people don't understand the distinction that the constitution limits the government.  Your broader view is not unique, but it's of no consequence when discussing someone's rights or the government's intervention (or not) with the exercise of those rights.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Whatever limits there are, it is for the courts to determine and police to enforce, not mob, however lofty its ideals might be.

Mob? That's a bit, no, a lot of a stretch.

Four men with weapons were among 33 people arrested by Boston police during Saturday’s “Boston Free Speech” rally and counterprotest on Boston Common, police said Sunday.

The charges included disturbing a public assembly, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest, according to Boston police.

According to the Boston Globe:
Police, protesters commended for Saturday’s show of peace
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/08/20/police-protesters-commended-for-saturday-show-peace/LiXbF7wCAq2LOYzsJIr2FM/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ReadMore_Pos9

So, 33 out of 40,000 got arrested (and we even don't know from which side), and you call that a mob????

Cheers,
Bart

[texshooter]

The hysteria continues.

Man stabbed because his hair looked racist.


http://nypost.com/2017/08/19/man-stabbed-after-haircut-gets-him-mistaken-for-a-neo-nazi/