But weren't these the 'very fine people' that your president was referring to? We need to continually remind everyone of the way your president has acted and responded in support of these alt-right, white nationalists. Don't let these grotesque racist behaviors disappear from view - daily reminders are required!
6
The manner in which these racist white men use and abuse the law is staggering. They will scream to the heavens that they have every legal right to trash and attack all who are not white, Christian, and right wing, and yet when their illegal activities are challenged, they act as if they are under attack by the terrible government.
For those of us who have been observing the racist right for decades, this level of self promotion as well as the aggressive tactics is nothing new, except that they are now supported and encouraged by the president. Every other chief executive in my lifetime has at least paid lip service to racial and religious equity, so it is far from surprising that Trump and his minions have given this mob a new sense of entitlement. The KKK act has actually been violated multiple times during the Trump administration in smaller and less publicized ways- violence due to public statements of racial hatred is a growing and terrifying crisis under this racist regime.
7
The plaintiffs may not win in court, but continuing to bring legal action against white supremacists will discourage potential recruits. Having to spend money on lawyers and time in court defending themselves might cause many to rethink participation in actions that could (fingers crossed) bankrupt them. As someone once said in a different context: "Follow the money."
5
Note Trump's words. "There were good people on both sides"
2
Discussion of how long the best bludgeoning stick is sure sounds like conspiracy to commit violence to me.
Is recommending weapons to carry how America becomes great again?
4
It always boggles my mond that there are Nazi's or Neo Nazis still in existence. I would have thought that question was settled in 1945 by our fathers or grandfathers. I would also think they would be appalled- along with anyone in the armed forces today- that the Nazi code would be something that is embraced in the USA. It's puzzling that many of these self described Nazi's and Neo Nazis most likely had family members who fought and died in WW2 against people like themselves.
6
“If you plan and execute violence — toward Jewish people, people of color, diverse communities like Charlottesville — you will be held responsible for your actions.” Elizabeth Sines, as quoted at the end of this article.
This is the clearest rationale for this case, and every American who represents the best of this nation should support lawyers who prosecute these hate-mongers in this way. If we're to have a nation of lawyers that makes us so litigious, then by God's grace let us have a nation that devotes their energies to such protections of the common good.
2
Nazis do not hesitate to use violence. It’s how they achieve power.
The history of fascism is sufficient to show the intent of those who join it, with or without the display of axe handles.
When the purpose of an organization is the extermination of minorities, membership in it is evidence enough of conspiracy.
3
"The First Amendment is about protecting horrible opinions, not protecting reasonable ones"
Actually, for the most part the first amendment is about protecting reasonable opinions from a (potentially) horrible government.
For example, the protesters in Hong Kong hold what many people would consider to be reasonable opinions - yet they are under assault for them. THAT is why we have the first amendment. Not so much so that neo-nazis can spew hate. They have the right IN PRIVATE to be their nasty selves, but once their venom is out in public they've forfeited that right. The first amendment is not infinite.
18
I had the exact some thought when I read that quote. The First Amendment provides protection and the right to speak out against one’s government. It is not the right to spew hate and encourage violence against fellow citizens.
11
@SB Actually, the First Amendment is about protecting ANY opinions from the government; even horrible, hateful ones. But this isn't the government-- this is a civil lawsuit instituted by private citizens. The First Amendment is not relevant to this suit.
7
@It’s News Here’s,
Spewing hate and encouraging violence are not the same thing.
You have a right to hate and to express it. I hate Nazis.
You don’t have a right to physically harm others or to urge others to do so if physical harm results.
2
“Not every hateful thing is a denial of someone else’s rights.” What does that even mean? It’s okay to hate someone ... a little bit? Okay to try to get others to hate that person and others like them, usually through lying and inflammatory speech? What is the end goal of this? Ultimately, every hateful act (including speech) desires that the hated person ceases to exist. Hate is a denial of the hated person’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It ends in the destruction of civil society.
7
@Anon,
Hate is natural human reaction to that which offends or harms you. You can’t legislate emotions.
I certainly hope that Nazis cease to exist. You can’t criminalize me for that.
What you’re referring to is prejudicial hate that works to deprive others of their rights and to promote violence.
The intent and the action are what matter, regardless of the emotion behind them.
I find this article rather confusing. According to Mr. MacFaruhar: "Proving a conspiracy is the crux of the lawsuit, which is rooted in a rarely invoked component of an 1871 federal law commonly called the Ku Klux Klan Act."
Although he does not provide any specifics, Mr. MacFarquhar appears to be describing two (2) Federal statutes: 42 U.S.C. 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights, and 42 U.S.C. 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. Both are modern versions of the Ku Klux Klan Act, but neither is 'rarely invoked'. A quick trip to the law library will provide hundreds of case law examples leading up to the present day. And they do not only apply to race relations; they apply to any situation where someone is denied a right under Federal law which has been granted to them by Congress.
As for Mr. ReBrook's statement “The First Amendment is about protecting horrible opinions, not protecting reasonable ones”, his analysis is pure rubbish. Planning to assault or defraud someone is not a free speech right under the 1st Amendment.
It appears that what these people were plotting in their on-line discussion is better described as a terroristic threat. Many states have these laws; in Minnesota where I live it is codified under MnStat 609.713.
11
What you described is not freedom of speech, it’s hate and violence. With rights, comes responsibilities.
10
It's not made clear in this story whether individuals involved committed felony assault by direct online threats of violence. I didn't see any quoted. But it's clear that thousands of individuals make such threats every day. And that hardly anyone is ever prosecuted for them.
This degrades our civilization. Our law enforcement authorities are perfectly capable of identifying perpetrators of felony assault, and "anonymous" online usernames are no shield. Once a few thousand of them are sentenced to hard time, and their identities exposed, our national dialogue should improve considerably.
That would not be suppression of free speech, it would simply be the competent exercise of centuries-old laws against threatening violence. We have a right to demand a civil society, which depends equally on our right to free expression and our right to be free from threats of violence.
3
Seems that if you bring weapons to a rally you have intent to raise more than your voice. Speech is one thing, axes should not be needed in a public gathering nor are they in any way 'peaceful' ... The outcome shows the intent, however, was never to protect speech but to do real damage.
6
We all have such limited time on earth. 70, 80, 90, 100 years tops?
I can’t comprehend why folks want to throw away those years, wasting them on violence.
23
@Layo : I urge you to think about the subject, because our failure to understand the causes of hate means that those causes remain intact, and hatred/violence continues to flourish.
People whose needs (physical, psychological) aren't met are hurt and fearful; that hurt and fear often turn to anger (because anger is a vitalizing/energizing force), and the anger is directed at some Other.
So what do we do?
---- Mandatory parenting classes.
---- Comprehensive, single-payer govt-run healthcare for everyone, including psychotherapy for the many who are wounded by lousy parents (who themselves were victims of lousy parents, so I'm not blaming anyone, just saying that we have to interrupt the cycle of lousy child-rearing).
----- Substance-use treatment for everyone who has turned to self-medicating as a way to cope with the pain.
----- Excellent schools that help every student find out what singular-they love/are good at, and then provides comprehensive, supportive education.
----- A social safety net for those who find themselves unemployed, so they don't fall, or fall back, into blaming the Other.
----- Fair and robust taxation not only to fund all of the above but to avoid the rise of the sociopathic, oligarchic class that is killing the rest of us.
6
I don’t see the difference between White nationalists discussing weapons for a rally and terrorists planning an attack- except for the fact that the white nationalists were open and brazen and public about their actions
Axe handles? Really?
39
How would the plaintiffs prove intention? How can anyone demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that the mind, heart, or soul of a defendant harbored violent or murderous intentions motivated by racist hatred?
It does seem possible, however, to prove conspiracy to cause harm, and conspiracy in the ordinary sense (I am not a lawyer) presupposes intention to cause harm.
Activities such as email exchanges, online postings, blog entries, membership in hate groups, even the open display of lethal weapons by so many Charlottesville white supremacist marchers, seem to support a claim of conspiracy. Wasn't the purpose of the Reconstruction era law to outlaw conspiracies to harass, lynch or intimidate recently emancipated African Americans by groups like the 19th century KKK?
It yields an interesting perspective on history to see these long-neglected federal laws used to prosecute the ideological descendants of the original Klan members a century and a half after the need for them became urgent.
11
@Mary C.
Mary, this is a civil suit and the burden of proof is less stringent then "beyond reasonable doubt". the burden of persuasion in civil actions is either clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of evidence. i am not sure what standard the trial court will use, I believe it depends on the type of claim. I am sure someone with chime in with more authoritative answer. But this is what the Court said in Griffin cited in the article: "Under these allegations it is open to the petitioners to prove at trial that they had been engaging in interstate travel or intended to do so, that their federal right to travel interstate was one of the rights meant to be discriminatorily impaired by the conspiracy, that the conspirators intended to drive out-of-state civil rights workers from the State, or that they meant to deter the petitioners from associating with such persons...."
6
@Harry, yes, the question, ot seems to me, is what did the accused (or respondents, if it's a civil suit) plan to do? If they planned to impair the civil rights workers' "federal right to travel interstate," then their intention was discriminatory: "to drive out-of-state civil rights workers from the State."
Isn't a discrimatory intention transparent in the objective of the shared plan, which may then be called a conspiracy to deprive someone of the exercise of a civil right? I think all that should be required is to bring compelling evidence of the objective of the plan. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it does not look like a difficult case for the petitioners to win on civil rights grounds.
Thanks for the clarification and the reference to precedent.
3
@Mary C.
I think the word 'intent' has to be qualified. It might be more difficult to prove from an on-line discussion if someone intends to carry out a criminal act. But if someone who participated in the on-line discussion brought an ax handle to the rally and assaulted someone with it, then the mere fact that they brought the ax handle along would indicate intent. In that case, their actions certainly weren't accidental.
5
Violence is not free speech
35
‘“This lawsuit that I am facing is just totally detrimental to what I am doing,” Richard Spencer, a leader of the effort to mainstream far-right thinking, said in an interview on The Public Space, a YouTube channel.’
Good. You and your ilk promote and provoke these abominations, and then cry when they come back on you. Sad.
64
The Charlotteville rally was beyond sickening to see occurring in the 21st century. But it's heartening to have more and more white nationalists, KKK members and neo-Nazis be held accountable for their despicable actions. They won't be able to hide behind the First Amendment forever! Also, they're complaining about their "secret membership lists" being revealed after having come out of the woodwork to protest with the intention to exercise violence - I say make their names public asap. These people are clearly a national security threat.
48
@Nicole
Why do you think they came to conduct violence rather than simply discussing the need for self defence?
1
My young grandchildren asked if Nazis were coming for them. I can’t believe the time has come that I am afraid to travel in my own country. I no longer visit Republican states. However, we in NYC welcomes you all with open arms. Please keep your ax handles and guns at home.
6
@Olonzo How is this even a question? Did you not read the article or see footage of the rally? They didn't bring notes to 'discuss' anything. They came armed and ready to fight, and fight they did. A woman was killed and dozens injured. I refuse to play down their intentions when their entire ideology is malicious at the root.
11