Skip to main content

View Diary: The Agitators in Ferguson (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hooray physical assaults on outside agitators! (4+ / 0-)

    There is surely nothing more progressive than supporting the efforts of cops and private individuals to suppress dissent.

    My gosh. I am not a supporter of fringe sectarian groups trying to profit off Ferguson unrest.

    But bullying and expelling them? Are you joking?

    Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are supposed to be fundamental rights that we extend to those we disagree with. That's the whole point.

    Defeat the interlopers with words, not with shoves and assisting the cops in exiling them to jail or out of state.

    •  Fuck that (47+ / 0-)

      Those dumbasses are doing shit that is going to lead to black people in the community getting shot at or killed. They aren't there to help anyone but themselves. They are directly trying to provoke people to violence.

      Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

      by moviemeister76 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:33:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It becomes a problem... (19+ / 0-)

      ... when they set fire to buildings and begin shooting people, as someone apparently did last night.

      I have no idea who set the fires and who did the shooting last night, but I would be willing to bet it was outsiders.

      The people of Ferguson have enough problems with the racist police forces of the St. Louis area without having outsiders and criminals inciting the coos and committing acts of violence. Those who have a real beef with the local cops and officials have a right — I would argue a duty — to rid their ranks of provocateurs who only pollute their message and play into the racist meme that the black community in Ferguson is "out of control."

      I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

      by ObamOcala on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:35:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People have rights in America. (0+ / 0-)

        We can't pick and choose who has the right to speak.

        Yes, it's frustrating, messy and extremely annoying.

        So what?

        Provocateurs and the violent should be signaled to law enforcement or dealt with forcefully if LE cannot be reached.

        Lefties with alternate opinions who express them peacefully?
        We shouldn't be stifling them.

        •  No, they don't (7+ / 0-)

          They have the right not to have GOVERNMENT abridge their speech. They have no First Amendment right to say what they want n the streets of Ferguson if the people there don't want them to. It's frustrating, messy and annoying that you cannot expand the definition of the First Amendment, but you need to read the Constitution.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

          by anastasia p on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:32:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is 100% incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

            The 1st Amendment does not grant communities free rein to suppress speech they dislike in public areas.

            It doesn't matter if the community wants them there or not.

            Take the front of the White House. All sorts of crazies demonstrate there, many of whom 99.9% of the local community despise.

            You need to read the Constitution.

            •  So let's take the next step in this ... (0+ / 0-)

              thought exercise.  Suppose you have something to say that the Ferguson community doesn't want to hear and they shout you down, making you feel that you've been forced to leave town.  Whom do you sue?  What are your legal causes of action?  Denial of right to free speech?  The case will be dismissed because the citizens are not governmental entities.  

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:55:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Everyone has the right to shout me down. (0+ / 0-)

                No one has the right to physically assault me.

                No one has the right to bully, threaten or harass me out of town because  I am expressing an unpopular opinion.

                Let's say I am standing on a public sidewalk in super-religious Somewhereville, USA talking loudly to a colleague about my atheist views (just an example, I'm not an atheist). Maybe I'm holding a big poster that says "YOUR GOD IS DEAD".

                The local residents and police have NO right to arrest me, bully me, or force me from the public area. They do not have any right at all to make me stop talking because my views are not popular. They may speak back to me and yell at me, of course.

                It's astounding to me that Kossacks seem to believe communities have a legal right to suppress unpopular speech.

                False.

                •  If you re-read my comment, ... (0+ / 0-)

                  perhaps this time you'll note that I said you were made to feel that you've been forced to leave town, i.e., it becomes clear that your speech is unwelcome and you leave on your own volition.  (In other words, you're not actually arrested or physically assaulted by anyone listening to you.)  Your speech was still effectively suppressed, was it not?  Your ideas and opinions were unwanted and rejected.  Now what?  Have your rights been trampled?  Do you have a lawsuit?  If so, against whom and under what law?

                  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                  by Neuroptimalian on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:17:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No lawsuit there that I can see. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Gwennedd

                    The (multi-uprated!) commenter I tangled with said that communities could suppress and expel speakers whose beliefs they do not share. And that free speech protections only shield one from government forces.

                    All of that is nonsense.

                    Every American has the right to express whatever the heck they want in public.

                    No one has any right to abridge that free expression, certainly not based on the CONTENT of the speech. (As long as the speaker is not committing or inciting any criminal act).

                    •  So people should, for example, ... (0+ / 0-)

                      stop trying to get Rush Limbaugh off the air or get people fired who are anti-LGBT?  

                      There apparently are many people who disagree with you that

                      Every American has the right to express whatever the heck they want in public.

                      No one has any right to abridge that free expression, certainly not based on the CONTENT of the speech. (As long as the speaker is not committing or inciting any criminal act).

                      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                      by Neuroptimalian on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:53:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Neither are free speech issues whatsoever. (0+ / 0-)

                        Rush has a right to stand in any public street anywhere and speak his nonsense.

                        He works for private companies and stations who purchase his show. If you don't like it, you can absolutely argue to the companies/stations to discontinue his show. You can fight to get other companies to pull ads from his show as well.

                        In many states, sadly, companies may legally fire workers for being LGBT. People in any state may organize to pressure companies to fire anti-LGBT workers.

                        None of that has a thing to do with free speech guarantees.
                        Private companies are free to fire anyone whose message or presentation does not cohere with their mission.

                        Those guarantees allow us to speak IN PUBLIC PLACES free of restriction, constraint or suppression. That freedom cannot be abridged by the content of the speech (unless said speech incites or itself commits a criminal offense).

                        •  First,"speech", free or not, is not contingent ... (0+ / 0-)

                          upon the medium by which it is transmitted.

                          Second, you can go stand on a soapbox in a town square and spout off about whatever you want but if the audience boos you to the point you leave, your right to free speech has been thwarted because there is no corresponding legal obligation that the audience must listen and tolerate it ... and you have no right to sue anyone because the government itself has not violated your rights, which is all the constitution applies to.  

                          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                          by Neuroptimalian on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 12:39:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You keep bringing up irrelevancies. (0+ / 0-)

                            (1). The medium and content of speech don't matter IF IT IS PUBLIC SPEECH. Any radio station may hire or fire any speaker at any time BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING THEM TO SPEAK. The speech is commercial and private, regardless of the subsequent publicity the hiring entity grants the speaker's words.

                            (2). If I CHOOSE to leave, that's my own problem.
                            But the community has no right to physically force me to leave by vigilante methods or by police methods. I could sue any individual who laid hands on me or used violent threats to force me out of town. And I could definitely sue any cop who refused to back me up, force the community to back down and allow me to exercise my right to free speech in a public area.

                          •  Good luck trying to sue a city ... (0+ / 0-)

                            whose police department refused to back up your free speech right and turn it into an obligation that the audience listen.  There is no such legal obligation.  If you think differently, try and find a court decision which supports your contention that police are obligated to "force the community to back down".  You won't be able to find one because there's not one that comes within a mile of what you're claiming.  

                            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                            by Neuroptimalian on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 05:34:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Individuals are always allowed to speak in public. (0+ / 0-)

                            If they commit no crime by speaking, they can speak.

                            Cops must honor that right. Period.

                            No one is forced to listen. They can leave, plug their ears, talk, mock, scream, yell, whatever.

                            But they CANNOT use physical force or the threat of physical force to expel a person lawfully speaking in public.

                            They'd be arrested, charged and liable to civil action. Any cops backing them up would face the same consequences.

      •  How do you propose the peaceful (0+ / 0-)

        "rid their ranks" if not with words?

        "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

        by tardis10 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:49:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  this is likely since residential burglaries (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mopshell, Gwennedd, Wee Mama

        are also sharply increasing.  After all, residents are not likely to burglarize themselves.

        However, I note that some news commentators are stressing that the looted stores are owned by "brown people" such as Koreans, Indians, and other nationalities.  However this story misses the point as to how many owners are part of the neighborhood and how many live outside of the area.  This is part of the resentment against shop owners in some areas that are undergoing racial change.  While white business owners do sell out in such areas, they frequently do so to outsiders and this can lead to resentment in the area  

      •  If there were no big police presence (3+ / 0-)

        and people in Ferguson were allowed to go about there business, there would be no reason for agitators to be there because there would be no one to provoke.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:30:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  amused you interpreted "push them out" (3+ / 0-)

      as an actual pushing instead of using words to get them to leave.

      k.

      Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. Russia Today=FoxNews, Seralini=Wakefield. yadda yadda.

      by terrypinder on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:52:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "push them" (6+ / 0-)

      I doubt that Barackstarobama meant actually physically pushing them.

      I care about the people of Ferguson getting justice. I'm all for outside agitators who are there to help the people of Ferguson accomplish their objective.

      I'm not all for outside agitators who are there riding the coattails of this tragegy for their own agenda and to smash windows and forment violence.

      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

      by fcvaguy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:33:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and the community pays for it. (5+ / 0-)

      These outside agitators are selfishly taking advantage of a situation for their own ends, and Ferguson -- and Ferguson's righteous cause -- pays for it.

      These agitators don't give a damn about Michael Brown or Ferguson's black community.  They just want a chance to duke it out with cops, and they make the Ferguson protestors look bad, because that's who the public thinks is behind all the violence and looting.

      These outside groups are helping no one.  Not even themselves, and especially not Ferguson.  They're just reinforcing terrible ideas that racist have about the black community, and cheating Ferguson of a chance to disprove those ideas.

      "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

      by Front Toward Enemy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:30:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site