Too bad the Justice Department isn’t as ambitious as a lawyer
Representing the plaintives
5
Be careful for what you wish. Blaming organizers for violence has always been used against the left. This trial could well backfire, end in a win for the alt-right and give them a major platform. Make no mistake: this will be a First Amendment trial, just as the Flag Burning case was 30 years ago.
Also, you can’t blame defendants for what their supporters post on the web. You have to prove violence was their intention. They will demonstrate leftists came with violent intentions. If the plaintiffs win, which I doubt, that decision will be used against al protest rallies in the future where violent elements cause disruption.
This case is ill advised.
10
There are always limits to free speech. Inciting violence--like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room--is one such limit or should be.
OK let's see if I got this right these white supremacist neo Nazi come from other state spread their message of hate march and create a hostile environment and expect no consequences from there actions ?
6
Was the same standard applied when people were shot in Ferguson during a rally? Or are you applying the Constitition differently based upon which groups you identify with? The idea of color blind justice is not to judge the virtue of ones race or cause.
5
"... Some experts on far-right extremism question whether the lawsuit will reveal anything beyond what is already known about the far-right groups, that they are hardly rich and tend to crowdsource what money they get. ..."
It is not surprising to discover that ignorant deadbeats don't have any money.
Let's face it, one has to be a pretty dim bulb to a white supremacist.
7
The best way to confront these clowns is to ridicule them. They WANT to provoke physical confrontations, believing that this makes them look reasonable in comparison. What they HATE is being laughed at. Take pledges from people to donate $X per minute of Nazi protest to the UNCF, CJP, or NAACP. Hold signs that lampoon their catchphrases. They will go away before you can say "boo."
6
Brilliant idea; please promote this far and wide.
2
I love it when fools believe they can say anything they want to, you can't.
If your words incite one or a group of persons to perform an act of violence your in big trouble.
But for those groups from Charlottesville that still think they can say anything they want to, please (DON'T DO THIS) walk into a theater and yell FIRE and see where that get's you.
6
Unless the more complete car crash video has disappeared entirely, a court case would have to show that the car was slowing to a stop in front of the blocked intersection, and then was attacked from the rear, one man at the left striking the trunk with a rod or pipe, and another striking the rear at the right. The car then surges forward for a short distance into the impact.
2
I'm appalled by your post about the technicalities of the video rather than horror at the people being injured.
2
The notion promoted by the defendants that they are free speech advocates is hooey. As this is a criminal case, the standard of certainty is "a reasonable person has no reasonable doubt." A civil case, which depends on the "more likely than not" standard, would be easier to win. Perhaps that is in the works too? The DOJ does not want to get involved? Figures. The last thing this White House will ever to is protect the civil rights of somebody other than their own white nationalist supporters. The deep pocketed donors of these white racist groups ought to be held accountable for what they are paying for.
7
Free speech does have limits. You cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, because it is reasonable to assume that people will be hurt during a panicked attempt to escape. Likewise, it can be assumed that people will be hurt if you gather crowds of rascist people together and then rile them up with hate speech and extoll the virtues of violence to further their cause.
6
They rehearsed. They provoked. Now they want to stand away from their evident delight in yelling "fire" in a crowded theater because one of their own acted on it. Sorry boys. This wasn't performance art. You conspired. This was a conspiracy. And the courts are there to uphold the law, not let you find ways to flout it. May the wrath of the people fall upon your heads
11
Ahh, yes, inciting violence is exactly what they did. Note also their use of the word "trigger." The stated intent is to "trigger" violent reactions in others, not just their own people. This suit is spot on. I hope, and believe, some extremely smart lawyers are involved in this, that all involved see the implications beyond Charlottesville, and that this may result in a very good delineation between free speech and hate. Otherwise our culture is simply subject to those who yell the loudest. Is that free speech as intended?
7
I encourage everyone to read the report prepared by Huttton and Williams for the City of Charlottesville on that preparations for and events of that fateful day. By doing so, you will see how the City of Charlottesville and the Commonwealth of Virginia had a huge role in allowing the tragic events to occur leading to the death of the young woman. The governor of Virginia, Charlottesville Mayor, Charlottesville Police Chief and several others should be held accountable for how their actions and in several cases willful lack of actions that contributed mightily to the day's violence.
For those who want to place all the blame on the alt-right protesters (and don't think I am trying to defend them or their beliefs, because I am not and certainly won't ever do so) are looking at the events with blinders on. The day's tragedy was created by a chain of events and actions by the protesters, counter protesters and city and state governments combined.
The blame for the death of the young lady is solely the fault of the car driver who murdered her. The fault for the violence that preceded her death is mainly on the City and State for their lack of adequate crowd separation and control to prevent violence from occurring. Read the report and you will see that this was the case.
8
Good luck going to court and arguing that you can't be blamed for that ribbery and murder, because the cops should have been driving down the block and stopped you.
1
The City and police are likely immune.
Also based on what I saw on TV the counter protesters played a major role in initiating and continuing the riot.
1
Modern limits on free speech in SCOTUS jurisprudence began in 1919 with Schenck in which Justice Holmes enunciated in dicta the “clear and present danger of imminent peril” test. It’s since been modified to a balancing act test but in essence i”clear and present danger” is the touchstone.
Under any measure the test was satisfied in Charlottesville and the “speech” of the fascists and white supremacists was not protected.
Given the Justice Dept is headed by a person whose past actions and comments suggest he may be a racist, and we have a President who obviously is, it’s important that “private attorneys general” take up the slack.
Bankrupting the haters and permanently enjoining them from defiling the hallowed grounds of the University of Virginia again with their presence is the legal remedy.
Hopefully they will be forced to crawl back into their sewer of hate from whence they came.
WGG
UVA ‘73
20
Who decides what is a 'clear and present danger'? You? I think the more freedom of speech the better.
4
The clear-and-present-danger test has been supplanted by incitement test used to decide Brandenburg v. Ohio: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
JAB
VPI&SU '75
5
Distinction w/o a difference
1
Alt right really got it right that they have freedom of speech but so have the people to sue you for your deeds. Enjoy our constitution and by the way in the USA one has to pay for the consequences of one’s deeds even if you are white.
6
If someone is not anti-fascist, doesn't that make them a fascist or is there a lesser category of semi-fascist or quasi-fascist? Or, usually normal, but fascist ready when the need arises, like a Trump rally.
1
Child abusers can find legal representation and Mr. Spencer cannot.
Lawyers, you have redeemed thyselves.
4
Driving a car into people intentionally is MURDER. Organizing or planning to do so, or being in a group knowing this is going to happen, is conspiracy to murder. None of these can be nor are protected by the 1st amendment.
However as evil as racism is ( I consider it to be the single greatest evil in humanity and history) is NOT. Some very ignorant and frankly dangerously so fools here even go as far as saying; ''Tired of these losers perverting the protection of the 1st Am. in an attempt to shield their hate. No law protects hate, nor should it!'' and gets 49 recommends for this elementary rubbishing of liberty, free speech and democracy.
It is as frightening to me as the neo Nazi racist dribble printed in FOX but with the added burden of coming from apparently educated people who should know better and would get a fail in school even with 9 year old's if they were expressed in school essay.
So kiddies, let me explain what free speech and the right to think as one wants means. It means protecting the speech YOU DON't LIKE! Not even the most evil regime prosecutes those whose speech is pleasing to the rulers. I find reading the opinions here even more worrying than the usual garbage and hate printed at FOX or the UK's Daily Mail. It seems the American public are either totally whitewashed from the opinion comments (notice the very same few (10 or so) commentators dominating the comments sections everyday.
While those of us, even Democrats, who disagree are simply removed!
4
Vlad, speech isn’t the issue here. Organizing a violent rally, where people intentionally bring guns, set out to pick fights and engage in violence, is not in any way shape or form protected by the first amendment. That what the alt-right did here, as documented by the trove of evidence, and that is what the lawsuit is about. Using hate speech to intimidate and threaten others is also not protected.
4
Evidently red herrings abound in Sweden as well. Their are MANY offenses short of murder for which conspiracy or incitement to commit them is actionable, including violence, threat of violence and denial of others' right to peaceably assemble. The alt-white, by their own words and actions, have willfully made themselves targets. May they reap what they sow.
2
FWIW, the driver of the car intends to argue that he was fleeing an attacker and did not intend to harm anyone.
Stay tuned.
Imagine what the response would have been if a Muslim group organized an armed protest, distributed its plans to "crack skulls", killed an innocent woman, and injured countless others?
21
False analogies aplenty, here. First, the guy plowing through the crowd was not part of the "conspiracy". Second, if the Muslims planning a protest were also planning to crack the skulls of White Male counter-protesters, they'd be cheered in the NYT. It's not about right or wrong anymore; it's about identity politics. My guess is that those anticipating cracked skulls weren't expecting those to be among innocent bystanders, but among the expected troublemakers (antifa), anticipated to show up for a fight. That's apparently what happened.
1
The attack there on the heroic Heather Heyer was an act of war, so prison is the least those Nazis owe her, her family, and us.
If the Nazis don't like that, they can go tell it to the judge—and be glad that only a few decades ago, they would've had to go tell it to our tanks.
10
Those American Nazis and Klansman in nearby C-Ville spewed anti-Semite hatred that deserves no support. They came seeking violence and the death penalty is deserved for the murder committed by some members of their group! Also traveling to C-ville looking for violence were the armed masked anarchists of the left! They have similar records of rioting and attacks around the US. I trust they will face similar lawsuits to at least impede their destructive activities!
2
The term antifa is a fake invention (like the term politically correct), designed by conservatives to belittle and marginalize progressive tought.
The Antifa were partisans in Italy fighting Mussolini.
The “ antifa “ in Charlottesville were lefty folks who were distressed that NeoNazis and Klan were rallying in their city. Were there a few angry anarchist types there? Yeah. But let’s not put a fake label people who have no truck with violent ways.
3
Test in court ? Really? These people have admitted to what they are doing (trying to provoke violent responses) numerous times - on camera. If that's not yelling fire in crowded theatre, I don't know what is.
10
It’s very interesting to me to see the quick reaction as if taking legal action Is in someway out of bounds, untoward or underhanded.
Freedom of speech, as well as freedom to judicially challeng,e are part and parcel to our Constitution and our country’s framework.
If something is worthy to be challenged as ruled by the judges hearing the case, then the process is codified and procedure is paramount.
There are hate groups within our borders, and going about fighting them legally —as such are the tactics employed by organizations such as Southern Poverty Law Center— is civilized, proper, and as protected by the Constitution as any other right we have.
If it can be proven in a court of law that there was organization and conspiracy to commit violence, then this will out properly within the system.
There is a reason that some beliefs are considered to be radical, immoral, illegal and injurious to the public welfare.
White Supremacy in and of itself cannot be realized and implemented without violence and violation of basic civil rights, God given or not. Let the the courts strive to do what is never guaranteed and rule fairly with a ruling that evidence will bear out.
Sometimes some salient and consequential deterrent factors are good things for society writ large.
Legal challenges are sometimes the first step to such consequences.
6
What all the weepy apologists seem to forget is that the 1st Amendment protects the right to "assemble _peaceably_" (emph. mine). Even before their scheduled protest, the alt-right descended on the UVA campus as an armed mob, committing numerous, documented acts of unprovoked violence, including a blow to the back of the neck that ended up sending my friend, Tyler McGill, to the UVA Medical Center with a stroke. In other words, before they even entered Emancipation Park on Saturday, the group had already defined itself as a riotous mob, not as peaceful protesters.
The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceable, not riotous, assembly. Do you all get that? Or do you need someone to draw you a picture?
18
The 1st and 2nd Amendments of the Constitution are seriously abused and exploited, but America is always very bad at self-regulation. It might be a hold over from the days when rich white men had absolute power of life and death over all women, children and people of color and were backed up by their favorite church and local government. It wasn't that long ago. According to them, that was when America was "great".
6
Where does the ACLU stand on this? Would it defend their right to speak hate, but decline to defend planned violence? A challenging needle to thread.
5
So the argument is that Nazis can run rampant in our streets, creating chaos and fomenting violence? We defeated the Nazis in Europe during WWII so they could thrive in the USA after the war? Very interesting.
11
They're actually right.
If there weren't any confrontational "counter protests" these clowns would have likely marched around for a bit and then left.
3
So, they didn't violate the First Amendment, not because they seem to have prepared and planned for violence, which would not be protected speech, but because...other people used their First Amendment rights to counter-protest?
You do know that's not how this works, right?
4
So they're "right" because they were goaded?
They're above the law because they were triggered?
No.
They made their intent plenty clear beforehand, and it wasn't to put on a clown show. They promised violence, they fomented it, and they succeeded.
6
It seems to me this could have been predicted: bringing lawsuits with the specific intention of embroiling the accused in costly litigation.
It is a logical extension of the Left's general condemnation as 'fascist' and 'racist' of everyone and anyone that they dislike.
And I assume that most who are 'progressive' and readers of the Times will rally to a condemnation of the organizers and to the animus that supports this spurious litigation.
This is litigation to do harm to people and to organizations unliked by those bringing the suit. It will likely have a short-term effect. It will not affect the right-leaning anti-Marxist political movement that is developing in the country.
By taking this underhanded tack, which will result in legal failure (they will not be able to prove the 'conspiracy' and the case will fail), it will further show that some liberal-progressives will stop at nothing at doing hard to their enemies. This is not the route to take.
Common people who may now be sitting on the fence will take notice, and they will over time side (more) with those accused and less with those righteous ones who are using these tactics.
It would be one thing if there really were a conspiracy of the sort indicated. But I think most rational people, if indeed rationality is left in them in today's emotionalized climate, can see that this is about retribution and vengeance and a form of warfare against people whose ideas are unliked.
2
Well, when they go around wearing swastika armbands and carrying swastika flags and giving straight arm nazi salutes and chanting "Jews will not replace us!" I'm very comfortable calling them fascist and racist. When a man is interviewed and gives three reasons for attending the rally, ending with "And number three, killing Jews." I'm quite comfortable calling him a fascist and a racist. When another of his ilk purposely drives his vehicle into a crowd of people killing one and injuring many, I'm very very comfortable calling him a fascist and a racist. I think "most rational People" and "common people" agree with me.
10
"There is no Justice in the Justice System." This is especially true when you have Jeff Sessions in charge of the Justice Department
10
This could get very interesting. If the plaintiff's lawyer indeed has smoking guns showing the defendants expressed the actual intent to incite violence, then First Amendment protections are probably off the table. Offensive speech is protected, but if it fails the Brandenburg test, these yokels are in trouble.
4
I'd be interested to see how this turns out too. Specifically, was there internet chatter on Antifa forums announcing a violent Antifa presence along the march (I doubt all the Antifa folk who showed up to fight came as unorganized individuals; they're part of a "movement" after all)); and were the responses on Alt-Right forums "intent to incite violence" (and if so, will the Antifa forum members be likewise prosecuted), or simply individuals sharing their anticipation to give violent protesters what for.
1
Fighting words, inciting lawless action, soliciting crimes. Those exceptions to the 1st A might explain why the defendents are having a tough time finding representation
6
Did not expect Trump's DOJ to do anything. Shame on them. The Virginia authorities may have a strong case in that the defendants deliberately incited a riot, resulting in at least one death. This would be a very serious criminal case. The spotlight should be on the Commonwealth Attorney. Will he do anything or will he condone provoking riots?
1
Since we now have a Justice Department that actively opposes rather than defends civil rights, people must seek their own recourse through the courts.
Free speech does not mean incitement to and commission of violence, which was the purpose behind the Charlottesville rally. The "alt right" didn't even try to hide that.
Pushing these folks off the streets and back to the Internet would be a good step.
6
Shouting fire in a crowded theater has never been protected speech. Urging violence at a rally is no different.
9
Shouting "fire" in a theater is legal and protected speech if there is a fire.
See also Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) and NAACP V. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
There is the matter of the "incitement test."
.
2
About a year ago, I received a speeding ticket. Since it had been several years since my last citation I perused the piece of paper and noticed one of the citations on it was for "fighting words". At the time it made me laugh, as I envisioned an old, bearded miner, yelling "them's fighting words" across a crowded bar.
But now I look back and think, well, yeah, that makes sense. It's written proof that not all speech is protected.
I'll repeat what I've said a million times before, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. And it certainly does not mean freedom to be abusive or cause harm.
64
I recall that a 1969 Grand Jury in Illinois, during the Trial of the Chicago Eight (later known as the Chicago Seven) , used provisions of an existing Federal Law that prohibited the crossing of state lines for the purposes of inciting violence or riots to convict several of the defendants. And that it was only after a second trial in 1972 under the US Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit that the convictions were reversed, due to findings that the presiding Judge of the original trial was prejudiced against the defendants and acted improperly.
So yes, it seems that if a conspiracy to incite violence when crossing state lines can be proved, there seems definitely to be precedent on the books for seeking charges against Mr. Kessler and his hate group leaders.
27
If this is correct, there are going to be a lot of BLM protesters/rioters/looters liable to be prosecuted for their participation in a riot that turned awry. I remember that a lot of those who descended on Ferguson and "incited violence" were from out-of-state.
3
JTF123's understanding of First Amendment limits is out of date. The standard for incitement is imminent and likely harm. And in a group situation, the Supreme Court's resolution of an effort by merchants to tag the NAACP with responsibility for violence that occurred in the course of a boycott of merchants requires proof of direct advocacy of the violence.
Before supporters of racial justice get too eager to support this lawsuit and efforts to use discovery to find out who is funding whom, they should consider what judicial protection they might seek when the shoe is on the other foot and it is a right-wing plaintiff group suing to hold Black Lives Matter activists liable for deaths in Ferguson or a similar community, and using discovery to identify financial backers.
6
Can you cite a case where Black Lives Matter organizers encouraged violence? Or where the organizers urged followers to bring weapons and be prepared to fight?
6
You failed to read Paul Alan levy's comment. He indicated that it is possible for this to happen. Although I do recall the BLM marchers calling for the death of Police Officers. This is on YouTube and was covered extensively by both CNN and Fox.
1
Good. I look forward to following this case. I still hold the ACLU partially responsible for the Charlottesville fiasco because it stepped in to defend a hate rally after the city denied the initial permit. The ACLU's attempt to dodge accountability in the immediate aftermath was disgraceful. Shame on the ACLU. It now says it will not defend hate groups or groups that advocate violence but that should have been its position all along. Too little, too late.
17
One would logically expect the Department of Justice - after all it is a matter of justice and civil rights - to investigate and prosecute anyone violating the law.
However, with our racist president and his stooge of an Attorney General who has a long record in the Senate as being against black people, the American people are on their own.
As this article points out, without government help, it is individuals trying to get justice from the courts. Let's all hope and pray that they succeed.
28
Leave those "very fine people"alone.
4
Freedom of speech doesn't protect us from responsiblity for our actions. If the violence spontaneously erupted then obviously only those who engaged in violence should be punished. However, if there's proof that there was a conspiracy to encourage violence then the leaders are responsible and need to be held accountable.
I fully support freedom of speech. The civil rights movement, womens rights movement, and LGBT rights movement wouldn't have been possible without the ability to debate ideas. What made them successful was that they were non violent movements. If you have to resort to violence to make yourself heard then your ideas aren't worth hearing.
34
I watched last week's excellent NYT video on this issue, "How an Alt-right Leader Lied to Climb the Ranks," and it clearly documents the white supremacist rally goal of "triggering," or inciting a violent response in an attempt to play the victim and seek empathy.
Beyond inciting violence, shouldn't these misguided fools who claim to be Confederates and Nazis -- the two militaries responsible for the most American soldiers KIA -- be locked up as terrorists and/or enemies of the state?
16
This may be water under the bridge but the main reason that Charlottesville happened was that the left took the Alt-right too seriously.
A bunch of white Nazi sympathizers gather around and march - so what? Let them. There would have been no violence had there been no protest. The jerks would have got their two minutes of fame on the evening news. Since some of these are ruffians, decent folks should just stay away from them. Drugs are bad but you don't engage with drug dealers at a street intersection, do you? End of story. Most of the nation would never have even heard about it.
But the left engaged because they wanted the nation to hear about where Trump stood. And Trump fell for the bait. This is all political.
9
I think this comment is much too simplistic. Standing up to hate is a critically important First Amendment right AND responsibility, especially in the current political environment when Trump and many of his supporters promote, or at least don’t disavow, these views. Doing nothing may work, but doing nothing led to our current circumstances, so clearly its time to rethink doing nothing.
39
This is an absurd characterization of events. The plotters of the event came with weapons and also cached them all over the city. At least some clearly arrived planning to commit violent acts. “The left” didn’t magically make that happen in advance.
34
In the days after the "march", it came out in the news that the alt-right people did NOT have a permit to leave the area where they were supposed to gather. That shows they intended to encourage their followers to intimidate and yes, harm bystanders.
3
But under Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' First Amendment theory of "fire in a crowded theater", the rally organizers may be liable under a theory of actively advocating violence. Forcing the organizers to bear the cost of litigation may also be a sufficient deterrent to future similar actions.
28
Antifa actively advocated violence as well. Who do the tapes show as throwing the first punch?
7
Re: a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
That was 1917. But the fire was real and the theater was the crowded trenches and battlefields of the first world war. A few tens of thousands of American patrons died and for nothing. Be careful going down the road of banning free speech. You might end up having to deal with something worse than Charlottesville, if you do.
7
The more recent SCOTUS decision is, I think, Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969.
1
Discovering the funding sources behind the alt-hate movement makes the suit worthwhile. It seems likely there are dark money sources that do not want the public exposure.
63
When I say Rebekah, you say Mercer.
4
I am liberal. I have friends of all races. I vote Democrat religiously. BUT I do think people who have beliefs that are different from mine, have a right to express those view - it's the same right that I have to express mine and you have to express yours. I may completely disagree with the subject matter, I might find it repulsive, but I do not want anyone US citizens free speech to be hindered. Big brother is already closing in on us all. If you vote to stamp down free speech, even speech that you find abhorrent, you are voting to reduce all of our ability to speak up. People need to think about the big picture. Don't fixate on individual beliefs or ideas. Free speech does not have limits -- if it does, then who will define those limits? Let's not go there.
11
Anybody willing to stand up to Nazis is a hero.
10
When the Supremes decided that Money Was Speech, it changed the nature of what is Free Expression. It gave a green light to billionaires like Rebekah, Robert Mercer to back Nazis, and the Kochs, permission to flood TV and Radio with propaganda.
By the way, 1st Amendment was not written to protect the rights of people who advocate genocide. I know, I know, Nazis have rights, but then we have the right to Sue them for inciting violence, advocating genocide and overt threats against US Citizens.
There is a difference between the right of Free Expression and the "right" to advocate or incite hatred and violence. That's why we have courts, to decide whcih is which when the lines are intentionally blurred by .... Nazis.
9
But surely hitting a person on the head with a homemade club is not free speech? What about conspiring with others to hit people with clubs, where the conspirators know, hope, and expect that folks will get hit with clubs? Planning for and carrying out violent physical assaults is not remotely like "free speech."
9
Hopefully this lawsuit will eventually ensnare Rebekah Mercer as one of their financial backers. The world will be a much better place when people like her and her father are finally tried and convicted of treason.
47
Couldn't agree more with your view.
9
I think this legal tactic could bare some real fruit. Richard Spencer is on the record as stating that his goal is to "trigger" the opposition. So that his racist views gradually become more accepted. By the way when he mentions the word triggered he is specifically talking about inciting violence.
28
The most important aspect will be discovery. News/journo outlets would do well to use lawsuits like civil rights groups have to dig into the 5 Ws and H. Civil suits are a great investigatory tool.
6
The picture tells it all. A group had a permit to protest, a larger group did not and decided to disrupt, not protest, but disrupt the legitimate protest. While I do not like or accept white supremacist groups, they have a legal right to their opinion. And many had nothing to do with supremacy, but instead did not want a memorial torn down.
But the picture, I see a bunch of 'activists' throwing themselves at cars - on top, under (struggling to get under) cars, guys almost break dancing and all doing so in front of their cameras. This is nothing but a set up; didn't know until now.
12
The alt-right had a permit to meet in Lee Park. Nothing more. They decided to leave the park in a group and march through the town.
Go tell the people who were hit by the car that it was "nothing".
4
That's a remarkable interpretation of a photo showing the exact moment that the car driven by James Alex Fields, Jr. killed Heather Hayer.
If you'd like to understand exactly what happened, read the statement from the photographer: https://www.cjr.org/first_person/charlottesville-protest-photographer-ph...
Then come back here and tell me that this shows people throwing themselves under a peaceful car on purpose.
2
If you bring weapons to a "protest," it is no longer a protest.
2
When the Eagles won the Super Bowl there was civil unrest in the streets. The Eagles knew there would be a riot, vandalism, and looting. There always is after a super bowl victory. The Eagles are responsible for the damage. Right?
14
Did the Eagles seek a permit for their protest? Did they fashion weapons beforehand? Did they shoot wasp spray at the eyes of Philly residents?
3
Maybe, if the Eagle's organization implored their fans to destroy property.
11
Only if the Eagles participated in planning or inciting crimes. You don't seem to be following the thread of the lawsuit.
17
Wow. So screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is freedom of speech?
5
Screaming one's political beliefs together with full permits do not equate to screaming fire in a theater. You just don't like the message that's all but if you silence them who's the next unpopular movement you gonna silence?.
2
You're leaving out the conspiracy and the presence of weapons. Permits don't cover that.
1
They had a permit to meet in Lee Park, NOT permit to march and riot.
2
Free speech needs to be protected. So do innocent people in every corner of the country. Racism, hate and injustice needs to be exposed. Truth and tolerance for people who are different is the American way. Real leaders, people who can but don’t vote, anyone who loves this country have to stand up and be counted in 2018. No excuses, must be “done doing dumb”, nothing less than our way of life is at stake.
4
And here is the fine line between "free speech" and "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater".
Like all Constitutional amendments, there are "limits".
On the Second Amendment there is the limitation of "militia".
And the limitation on free speech is that you can't indulge your fancy on "hate speech".
And that is one astonishing photo.
Blood-chilling.
16
Hate speech is just liberal scam verbiage to silence folks that disagree with their political correctness viewpoints. American culture is silenced at the workplace where people whisper now comments that go against the Liberal agenda. It's almost like gestapo mentality and companies make everybody take classes to silence your speech.
3
Hate speech is constitutionally protected in the US. Incitement to violence is not. This case will turn on which speech acts fall into which category.
2
Stop mixing things up! Stop misquoting a line in an old Supreme Court ruling saying someone might be open to prosecution for “shouting fire in a crowded theater, THEREBY CAUSING A PANIC”.
The only crime would be causing a panic, and the fact this was done by speech does not allow a person to claim the act was Constitutionally protected.
The Second Amendment, sloppily drawn, but grammatically correct to allow what I and many others believes it allows,the institution now known as the State/National Guard.
It was a state’s rights law intended to head off the Civil War it enabled.
It neither guarantees nor bans private ownership/carrying of weapons, according to many of us comma-nists.
It might allow local government-run armed military units, organized auxiliary police or deputizing most people in a community to deal with a specific problem, unfortunately the problem was usually the presence on land new arrivals wanted that was occupied by Aboriginal Americans.
I believe the New York Times has Richard Spencer on camera saying that he wanted people to be “triggered“. It’s fairly obvious that the intention of the white supremacists was to provoke and not simply to exercise their freedom of speech.
17
And what responsibility do those who are targeted have? Those at whom the "trigger" intent was aimed could have ignored it. They could have held prayer vigils in a church or chosen a different part of the city for their own counter protest but instead they handed this group exactly what they wanted showing that they are just as angry as the skinheads and more than willing to take the bait. The result was violence and massive news coverage of a legal protest that otherwise would have come and gone from our minds within days.
When kids relentlessly taunted me in grade school because I was pudgy, wore glasses and was a girl science nerd, my Mom reminded me that all I had to was walk away. I didn't need to punch back in order to prove I was the better person.
2
Wow, that's handing a lot of responsibility to anyone "triggering" another party. Art is often meant to shock trigger; does that mean that anyone who knifes or burns a painting is justified in doing so? If your face triggers me, am I justified in punching it? If triggering or provoking entails responsibility for everything that happens afterwards, that's the end of free speech, isn't it?
Jeff schoep writes " the goal here is to break us and keep us from taking to the streets.". Wasn't that the goal, literally, when the facist driver drove his car into the protesters?
26
"Discovery in the case may also expose the links between the far-right groups and their often opaque sources of financing."
Absolutely, follow the money. Everyone financially supporting neo-Nazis should be exposed for the morally depraved monsters that they are. It's horrible but not actually surprising that some losers will make up vile excuses for their personal failures. But people with money financing Nazi/Klan rallies? That's big news.
Publish the names.
37
Ann, then we must include the financial sources behind BLM, and the Alt-Left seen in Berkley...people like Soros and?. BLM march for the purpose of disrupting business in Chicago and against our laws. Their hateful slogans against the police calling them pigs and asking how do we want them, dead, and now..happened in Dallas where shortly after policeman were killed..financial support for these groups must also be exposed for their hatred.
1
Not only publish the names but hit them with multiple lawsuits: let them pay the costs for the injured, to the City for all the overtime, and the legal fees, plus some very large punitive fines.
1
Wake up America! The kkk has been relabeled and taken a new name, ie: TAR, the alt-right, aka: TWN, white nationalist, which in and of itself is hilarious because factually speaking the only true “nationalist”, in America are the American Indians and the Mexican. Every other person on America Soil, of limited melanin, is in fact from some other country. Ignorance abounds within some pockets of humans, it displays itself by perpetuating its desire for separatism’s and superiority due to their inability to evolve and live with humanity. It is the “Christian” doctrine that states, “GOD, created ALL mankind equally”. When the flag of hatred, superiority and separatism’s is raised, where should intelligent, Christians stand? When the howls of hatred, murder and destruction are bellow, where should intelligent, humane people stand. Is this nation that we all reside a country of un-evolved, savages hell bent on the ingestion of human blood? Or, are we in fact, “the land of the free”? Freedom of speech is not freedom to TERRORIZE.
17
It sounds like a long shot to me—remember the outcome of the suit against Cliven Bundy.
However, the discovery process is sure to produce some useful—if not actionable—information.
Go plaintiffs.
23
There a=was no lawsuit against Cliven Bundy, he was charged with crimes.
11
Seems to me that there were factions on both sides that wanted a violent confrontation. The alt right on one side and antifa and their allies on the other. Neither side is blameless.
6
I live here and your assessment that both sides were equally guilty is dead wrong. The alt right sported military style weapons and were looking for a fight. Their entire porpoise was to cause melee and chaos in our city. They should pay for their disgusting invasion of our comminity. And they will.
59
I don't really see antifa organizing demonstrations like this which seek to terrorize the communities in which they're held, but they do respond to these demonstrations. Someone has to respond to terrorism, which is what these white nationalist demonstrations, complete with torches, shields, body armor and weapons, really are. If you think antifa is just as culpable for the violence that occurred in Chaottesville, I'd suggest you are part of the problem.
25
"Mike" using the TrumpistCult "Both Sides" argument is basically claiming that he he an insight in to the "intent" of the anti-nazi groups. That is a Lot of Mindreading to do. The "Both Sides" is a weak defense of Nazis. Who defends Nazis, Collaborators.
11
Good to see Ms. Kaplan working on this. She was brilliant in selecting Edie Windsor as a plaintiff and in arguing her case to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that she will ably pursue this case. All of us should be grateful for her willingness to shine a light on the consequences of this hatred.
41
Americans seem to have forgotten that civil rights demonstrators of the 1950s and 1960s were denied permits and arrested on grounds their demonstrations provoked violence. At Charlottesville, the two “sides” had permits to stage demonstrations at different Charlottesville parks. The Unite the Right demonstrators had a permit to assemble at Emancipation Park while the counterdemonstrators had a permit to assemble at McGuffey Park and Justice Park. The counterdemonstrators clearly provoked the violence by disrupting the Emancipation Park assembly. The Unite the Right demonstrators did not march on McGuffey Park and Justice Park.
9
Ah, the facts aren't important to the Left. This is nothing more than fascism by the left, which is ironic since they are claiming that Trump is the real danger.
2
Unite the Right folks marched at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville on the night before the official rally without a permit and with lit tiki torches and proceeded to use the torches as weapons against the handful of students and at least one Dean of the University who were by the Rotunda.
21
"civil rights demonstrators of the 1950s and 1960s were denied permits and arrested on grounds their demonstrations provoked violence."
The Civil Rights demonstrators advocated and were trained in non-violence techniques/. For example, there would have been no violence if the Freedom Riders were simply allowed by others to travel peacefully.
In dramatic contrast, as described in this article, the outsiders heading to Charlottesville for their "Jews will not replace us" and other marches and rallies were armed and advocating violence.
18
The Women's Marches that have taken place all over the country for two years in a row have also been carefully planned -- and organizers explicitly support non-violent techniques and training. Hundreds of thousands march and there is no violence. Almost no one advocates taking violent actions against counter-protesters. Organizers send out people skilled in diffusing tensions between opposing camps. I have seen these tactics at work, and they are effective. Marchers adopt the non-violent approach and live up to high standards of behavior.
But on the alt-right, we see the exact opposite approach to protest. They consistently embrace, condone, and incite violence in their followers. They go out into the streets with the intent to provoke violence through words and actions. Only the alt-right wants to go out into the streets with the express intention of injuring or even killing other people. They are a disgrace to American ideals.
123
It's up to the courts to put a stop to this. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to incite violence and harm people (you don't have the right to walk into a crowded theater and shout "fire!"). We as a society have forgotten that, and we need the courts to push the pendulum, hard, back to the middle. Before we become a fascist state (if we aren't already).
60
With fascists running the federal government it's getting hard to tell.
6
Even the courts will stop being a recourse for those seeking justice. Watch what the long range GOP plan is for the judiciary and Trump's acceleration of this plan. It is to pack all levels of the judiciary with white male "conservatives" many of which are qualified only on the basis of their right wing political cred, not their experience and recognition in their profession. The Bundy Case is a good example. Expect a new version of "Dred Scott", especially if we lose Justice Ginsberg.
5
"alt-right, a far-right fringe movement that embraces white nationalism and is often anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-women."
Isn't this the current GOP mantra? the only way to have a real impact is on the polls.
31
"Edgy humor and memes are part of internet subculture..." And that may just be what will bring these fascists down. Say what you want but be prepared to accept the consequences.
17
It was more than a "conspiracy." It was planned as an assault. Not recognizing that it like suggesting that the Nazi Germany era "beer hall pustch", was a night out with the boys.
53
As I read various histories on Nazi Germany, I recall that Hitler’s Party first gained “legitimacy”, then destroyed all other opposition. A group that states it is all about hate is set to destroy all other groups if it gains ascendancy. Look at the reasons the group exists. And look at who supports it.
27
Thank you, Dmitri Mehlhorn and Integrity First for America, for supporting the lawsuit against these neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Here's hoping these vile abominations are found guilty, ruined financially, and incarcerated for a very long time.
18
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that free speech is not infinite. And these hate filled people that were there in Charlottesville definitely crosses that line.
68
A young woman died. That's more important than their 1st Amendment rights. If the court doesn't decide that, it will be decided the next time in the streets.
52
Obviously this sort of thing is tantamount to yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, which the first amendment does not protect. Put these creeps in jail and set an example.
78
Re: a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater
That was 1917. The man was Schenck and he went to prison. But the fire was real and the theater was the crowded trenches and battlefields of the first world war. A few tens of thousands of American patrons died as a consequence of his voice being silenced. Be careful going down the road of attacking free speech. You might end up having to deal with something worse than Charlottesville, if you do.
Also apply fines. Let them pay for the hospitalization and medical care for the injured, the extra police required, the city's legal fees. For starters
1
NO ONE has the right to advocate murder and slavery as matters of political expedience.
78
This is fascism, plain and simple. The left wants to forcibly deny any opposition to their agenda and violate the 1st Amendment rights for those with whom they disagree. Thank God we have a conservative Supreme Court that will not allow this to stand.
6
It is fascism alright. More like Nazi storm troopers. Study Kristallnacht.
17
It is fascism. That's why it's imperative to shut down the far right any way possible.
10
I'm not sure a lawsuit "is fascism" in the context of a violent rally by a group of people with swastikas and Confederate battle flags shouting antisemitic slogans.
9
Given the average intelligence of humans, simple sloganesque arguments win.
This suit is a loser.
3
I'm going to be very interested in how this turns out.
On the one hand you have people saying they are looking forward to cracking heads--which sure sounds like planning.
And on the other hand you have groups turning to the courts because more people are joining the white supremacist movement--which is not illegal.
Interesting times.
4
That's not why groups are turning to the courts. It's because people are getting hurt. And killed. White supremacy is not illegal, but assault and murder are.
105
LT--Please see the quote from the article below:
"Opponents of the far right are turning to the courts in large part because the political establishment has failed to address the movement’s rising power"
2
I could be magnanimous and say you've *mistakenly* misinterpreted the remark. But in the context of planned violence I'd be more forthright by saying that your comment shows sympathy for neo Nazis.
3
I think all that's left is for President Trump to declare that there are "very fine people" on both sides of this lawsuit.
63
“'The goal here is to break us and keep us from taking to the streets,' said Jeff Schoep, the leader of the National Socialist Movement."
And that is wrong, because...?
58
It is wrong because the 1st Amendment protects the rights of EVERYONE, especially those with which we may disagree.
6
and you would be ok with same logic applied to BLM protests?
8
The 1st Amendment protects the right of everyone to "peaceably assemble". I can provide firsthand eyewitness testimony that the assembly was anything BUT peaceful.
13
Tired of these losers perverting the protection of the 1st Am. in an attempt to shield their hate. No law protects hate, nor should it!
88
i strongly disagree with their opinions and message, however this is America and we have the right to free speech. You cannot stop their right to peaceful, free speech just because you do not agree with it.
8
"No law protects hate, nor should it!"
This is just plain wrong. The First Amendment protects hate and other odious speech we disagree with; that's the point.
8
This was not peaceful free speech. These people advocated and expected violence. It's outside the scope of the First Amendment.
17
The rise of the right-wing due to twitter bots and other unethical practices is a disappoint on America’s democracy as a whole. Just glad there are objective and factual publications such as the NYT. Big ups from RSA New York Times :)
23
We have a problem. The problem is that it’s easier to be a Nazi here than it is to be a Nazi in Germany. Think that Germans might have some insight into this problem?
151
So when do we bring a law suit againt Antifa?
14
Well, Josh, good question. If there was reason to bring a suit, someone out there would do it. Crickets. Why? Because AntiFa stands for Anti-Fascist. It amuses me to hear your argument. It would be like a German in 1939 asking why no one will take action against the Ghetto Uprising by the Jews.
Here, Josh, tell me who said the following:
“I’m ready to crack skulls,” one person wrote. Others said they planned to go ....... with wrenches, pipes and wooden sticks. One man claimed he was going with a CACHE of rifles that “will shoot clean through a crowd at least four deep.” There were also plans to shuttle people to the rally grounds in what was called a “Hate Van.”
AntiFa, right?? Ooops, no. When you actually have something, let's hear it. Otherwise, we'll bring lawsuits against violence, not your fantasies.
159
Go right ahead.
14
Maybe you should do it, if you're smart enough?
28
This suit is an excellent start.
"In a different political climate, Mr. Mehlhorn said, the Justice Department’s civil rights division might have investigated and sued the planners of the Charlottesville protest. But, he added, 'These days, we do not expect the Justice Department or government lawyers to pursue any of these actions.'"
A succinct statement on how far we've fallen. Says it all, really.
250
Indeed. Not when the Boss thinks 'there are good people on both sides." ;-)
1
Yes, Obama's leftist Justice(?) Dept would have joined AntiFaFacists to fight the other fascists to remove their right to free speech.
1
Oh at least get your terms straight. Fascism is a far right desire. Antifa means "anti-fascists". They were a defensive group. The alt-right brought weapons and told each other they would start a riot.
4
I would hope that this case is argued before an unbiased judge, and not before a jury of peers. I fear, however, that the alt right movement is being given a huge stage to promote its agenda of divisiveness and hatred for "others".
13
It would not surprise me if the Justice Department, under the leadership and direction of Jeff Sessions, filed a friend of the court paper in support of the rally organizers under the guise of freedom of speech. Trump would then follow up with a tweet claiming counter demonstrators were responsible for the violence because they should have stayed away from the rally.
114
So here is the $1million dollar question: The alt-right has no right to assemble but the alt-left has a right to attack those with they disagree and then blame the victims. FYI Antifa is now considered a domestic terrorist group by the Homeland Security Agency.
4
Of course they have a right to peaceable assembly. There was nothing peaceable about what happened in Charlottesville, nor is that what the organizers expected. These racist fools incited violence and then pretend to be surprised. Please.
20
Here's your $1 million dollar answer:
We fought a war against Nazis and won.
They are already considered a terrorist group by the entire world!
6
In the pre-Trump era, the Supreme Court ruled that "fighting words" were not protected speech under the First Amendment. Surely it's up to the judiciary to determine whether the alleged Charlottesville conspirators uttered "fighting words." My only concern is that in the current political climate, the courts, like everything else, are becoming highly partisan, and I no longer trust them to be objective. In the absence of a true intermediary, I have no option left but to join the unruly liberal mob (as opposed to its conservative counterpart) and yell "Lock them up!"
52
Planning violence is not free speech. And I attended the Women's March this year in Denver. I saw no scuffles and though there were some nasty words, they were not directed at people at the march. These people know only violence and intimidation, and think it is normal for everyone.
143
From where I sit, the violence was instigated and maintained by the activist group that had no permit to protest.
3
Both sides had permits. Actually, the alt-right group didn't have a permit on Friday night. Unsure if they needed one as it was on campus, but for Saturday, Alt-right had an injunction to protest in Emancipation Park, the counter protesters "were allowed to be in nearby Justice and McGuffey parks from 9 A.M. until 7 P.M."
https://www.snopes.com/counter-demonstrators-permits-charlottesville/
3
Last I heard, rioting and incitement to riot are felony crimes under U.S. federal law. Free-speech argument certainly went out the window once James Fields plowed through crowds of innocent people with his car. The defendants can ridicule the suit as an act of "lawfare" all they want, but they will lose and should be punished accordingly.
127
But Donald Trump told us "there were good people on both sides" and we believe everything our "president" tells us. Surely President Trump would never lie !!!
29