Is It Permissible to Punch/Assault Neo-Nazis Without Provocation?

When Richard Spenser was physically assaulted I saw a lot of people saying that he deserved it and that the assailant was justified in unilaterally punching him in the face for his political views.

Is this justifiable? If someone shows you a Hitler salute can you repay that with a physical beating? Is this legally or morally justifiable?

In what other ways might it be permissible to violate the rights of Neo-Nazis? Take away their freedom of speech, freedom of association, shut down their websites, burn their books, etc?

If we implement the sort of society some of these Tumblr rats want, won't we just end up at totalitarianism from the opposite end?

Thanks.

 

No I don't think that unprovoked violence is ever warranted.
I would restrict certain freedoms of speech though. Holocaust denial and incitement to racial hatred for a start.

 

That might sound good to some but once government gets an inch they take miles.

 

Anyone laying a hand on another person in anger is considered assault. When the cops show up to a brawl, they will most likely arrest both parties if one claims assault. The incident will be sorted it out later at the 'station.'

 

Is it "permissible?" depends on the law enforcement in question. In lots of corrupt, Democrat jurisdictions, it would be allowed, no problem. Is it ethical? No, of course not.

 

I can't stand those neo-nazis, but it's not permissible. We should hold our freedom of speech as sacred. As much as I think they're a bunch of dirtbags and idiots, their freedom of speech should be protected with just as much zeal as anyone else's. In the final analysis, their freedom of speech is the freedom of speech of all of the rest of us.

 

You could use that weak argument to stop any new law.

 

So you support someone's right to say ''kill all Jews''?

 

I'll risk my life for their right to say it. Someone died for my right to speak as I please, I owe.

 

No.

Yes.

You're welcome.

 

Nice of you to admit you don't like freedom of speech.

A bit of honesty from the left is appreciated.Of course we've known this long before because of things called "principles". but at least you do admit that the second amendment is just garbage to you, as is the rest of the constitution.

See, principles necessitate this.

But at least you admit to this. It's more than your fellow lefties will do, because they have no principles.

 

yes

 

Lets take freedom of speech away from people who want to restrict freedom of speech.

Dang!

 

Nazi idiots get punched? Some day I just might get through every other inanely trivial consideration on this fine planet to give a ****. Until then they're just vaguely amusing liveleak clips.

But hey, we're here to pontificate and bigly up our moral and spiritual values so I'd absolutely lay down my life for a moron to yell on a street corner.

 

Freedom of speeception.

 

Incitement to violence is not a part of free speech anywhere.

This is why conspiracy charges are a thing.

One thing is to say "the jews are lesser human". This is free speech. It's awful, but it's free speech.

But when someone says "go kill that jew", it's illegal, because it's a direct call to action.

Incitement to violence should not be protected by free speech, and it never is, for good reasons.

Incitement to hatred though, should be protected by free speech, because it's not a call to action, and we're getting into a slippery slope if we start criminalizing emotions. Hatred is an emotion, not a criminal act.

 

Nazism has thugs as big enemy in USA and Sweden at least they so called neo Nazis.

 

Then you don't believe in free speech.

 

So, let's say you know a retarded person, a really strong retarded person. Someone really susceptible to do whatever anyone tells him.

One day, you specifically tell him to kill your neighbor. And you know he will do it if you tell him to. And then he kills your neighbor, like you told him to, in the way you told him to do it.

Should you not be charged with any crime?

 

You're taking moral agency away from the retarded person, making speech directly responsible for the murder. This is no different than loading a gun and hooking the trigger up to a voice activated machine that pulls the trigger when you say "fire!".

Neither the retarded man or the gun have any moral agency, therefore speech is just another method of pulling a trigger.

 

Remember black lives matter saying "pigs in a blanket fry 'em like bacon" is the free speech or incitement. In my book it is incitement and should have been prosecuted but in the minds of the left it was just free speech and it doesn't matter if some acted on it.

 

So, the legality of the speech, depends on the ability of the recipient?

Let's change the scenario around. The person might, or might not be retarded. You don't know.

Then you tell him to kill your neighbor. And he does. Anything changed?

 

Knowledge of fore thought has precedence in court.

 

Of course. But he's still just using his speech, isn't he?

There ARE limitations to free speech. Yelling "fire" in a theater, to cause a stampede is illegal, for good reasons. Incitement to violence, like telling specific people to kill specific people, is illegal, for good reasons. And threatening violence, by only using words, is illegal, for good reasons.

But will I ever agree with any "incitement to hatred"-laws? Nope. Can't criminalize emotions and thoughts. One of the cores of free speech is the free spread of ideas, and this is under threat if free speech is hampered by whatever some people define as hatred.

Violence is violence, it's concrete. Hatred is whatever people call it.

 

No I would not punch him in the face. Way more entertaining to find a convenient ant hill. Though if I could I would paint the bastards Black and toss them in the middle of a KKK rally

HATE racists. It is as if they have a psychic stink