Summary
A group displaying swastika flags on an I-75 overpass in Evendale, Ohio, was confronted by local residents, leading to tensions and a heavy police presence.
Residents pushed past police, seized a flag, and forced the demonstrators to retreat into a U-Haul truck.
Officials, including Cincinnati’s mayor and Hamilton County’s sheriff, condemned the demonstration.
The Jewish Federation and NAACP also spoke out, questioning where the demonstrators came from. The NAACP suggested the current administration’s policies may have emboldened the group.
No arrests were made.
Just to be clear here, no arrests were made because they were exercising their first amendment right they Americans are so proud of.
They displayed their message on public ground (the sidewalk) and were otherwise peaceful. Do I hate their message? Hell yeah I do, but unless the US realizes that free speech should have its limits then what they did was lawful.
In opposition, what the other people did was unlawful AND THEY WEREN’T ARRESTED FOR IT! The police actually did a good job here!
Agreed (mostly).
Just because something isn’t illegal, that doesn’t make it morally right. The inverse also applies.
Even though the First Amendment prohibits government suppression of speech, it doesn’t mean that the expression is immune to consequences from society including non-governmental suppression.
I think the “no arrests were made” observation was meant in relation to your last point, not the first at all.
Never said it was morally right but what is lawful isn’t necessarily moral and the cops are there to prevent things that are against the law.
I don’t think we want a moral police to become a thing…
Hate speech, fighting words, and word that cause dangerous situations, (think yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater) are specifically not covered by the US version of Freedom of Speech.
No arrests were made because the thugs with badges don’t arrest their coworkers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
Nope
Ok, that’s some bullshit, because they have ruled that causing a panic is illegal. Schenck v. United States, 1919.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47
The law is fucking imaginary.
It’s a different thing, I’m talking about hate speech specifically
You can do hate speech as much as you want in the US, if you threaten someone with violence or incite people to be violent with others it’s something else and so is causing a panic by screaming “FIRE!” in a theater when there’s no fire.
Three different things, one of them is legal and is what was done by the Nazis in that article.
I understood what you were saying. I get the technicality. I was venting that the technicality is bullshit when there is already a precedent that kinda says the opposite.
But the precedent doesn’t really apply here…