It sure didn't sound like she publicly posted the personal info of any right wing artists. She would never have another event if she had....and the gallery would probably have been firebombed.
She's a liar, one who bitches and moans when her lies are exposed. I don't trust a self serving word she says, she's a proven liar.

Nazis and white power groups are bad enough that standing with them makes one my foe....like NAMBLA. Some ideologies don't deserve any help spreading their message, even though they have a right to. When you offer your soapbox and amplifier to them, you become complicit in their support for hate crimes.

Sorry, but I've seen far too much alt-right lies and misdirection to buy it, and plenty of evidence that the gallery is abusing support for free speech to support and spread racist, racist alt-right ideologies, and blatantly lying about it. Their actions prove it to me. Pro-racist mass murderer speakers at events open only to alt-right listeners and kept secret from the public = rally, not roundtable.
Alt-right IS code for Nazi or white power, their own code. I'll just call them nazis, KKK, and random white power fans.

I'm still waiting for an admission that the title and description are bullshit, lies, and right wing propaganda. Can you be that honest please?

I did read about 'doxxing' those artists but the owner of the Gallery is also quoted as saying she did NOT send it to Amerika, but published the list for everyone, and sounded like it was what she always did.

I am a skeptic, and I've too often seen people just lumping others into camps of either friend/foe, and then accelerating the process by identifying anyone that associates with a foe is obviously now a foe too.

I'm sorry, but evidence against the gallery and the guy in the video here looks pretty limited. Might be right, but also might be wrong and I've seen too much witch hunting in Canada where anyone not on board is automatically alt-right, and alt-right is really just code for nazi, and if you've called them alt-right long enough then you can just start calling them a nazi.

It's dishonest, divisive and dangerous.

I picked Illinois nazis because that is (or was) the US standard; they were allowed to march in Skokie.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis

I did read that one, admittedly with reluctance because I've found the independent can be a lot more opinion than fact(ala msnbc/fox). The article mostly states Mr. Osborne accuses the gallery of many things, by far the worst is association with the website "Amerika" which I'm not familiar with, but unless it is so vile that even referencing it when discussing ideologies is 'bad' it didn't seem enough to make the gallery into witches, errr nazis.

For the Canadian incident, the full debate she showed a clip from is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

I'm afraid it's an hour long, but I don't know which 'clip' she would have been playing, although it was debate between Mattes and Peterson.

Lindsay Shepherd was the TA involved, this is the full audio recording of the meeting she was pulled into with 3 full staff and faculty to 'discuss' how her action of playing the video was wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nd32_uIcnI

Some was addressed.
Read the first link... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ld50-gallery-protest-lucia-diego-donald-trump-alt-right-hackney-dalston-a7596346.html
Stevens wasn't the only one.

If they claim they have them speak there to " provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." but hold the events in secret, only open to far right wingers and Nazis, that's pretty blatantly a lie. Don't you agree?

When they gave private information about the artists who outed their secret agenda to Amerika they became unambiguously guilty by their own actions, not just association....and guilt by association is still guilt. If I stand with, support, defend, and host NAMBLA, I fully expect to be lumped with them. They NEVER denounced the hate, racism, or fascism they supported, and they participated with them in attacks against those who oppose Nazis. Ergo-Nazi.

Try the first one....lazybones. ;-) It lays out both the stated intent and the actions that belie that statement.

When the video guy is well known for publicly defending the far right, neo Nazi supporting gallery that holds private, secret white power rallies, that's enough for me. He clearly made himself look like a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, and that's how the community sees him. He may just be a friend to Nazis, not one himself, but that's both a distinction without a clear difference and an image he created without stating clearly that he disagrees with them but supports their right to be wrong. That's on him.

It seems far easier to read the links than try to research it yourself, so I don't understand why you decided to ignore the research offered in favor of your own unproductive but far more labor intensive research. Seems a bit like putting fingers in your ears and saying you hear no evidence during a discussion.

@newtboy,

EDIT: drafted this and sent while you were writing previous reply, so maybe some of this is addressed?

Alright, I've gone one step further and read through the shutdownld50 tumblr 'evidence' seeing as they of all places probably gather the most condemning evidence they could.

The evidence amounts to putting on 1 event/exhibit that included far right folks, and included "Brett Stevens", whom I'm not familiar with but the quote from him on Breivik certainly sounds bad. In addition to putting on this exhibit, the even worse accusation is that they didn't really advertise it much publicly. Now, call me skeptical, but I have to believe that if they HAD advertised it heavily that ALSO would have compounded their guilt.

To me it still looks like guilt be association. The gallery had the audacity to host speakers that people disliked, so ergo-nazi!

Please though, if there is more or better evidence then please do let me know, or point me to what I'm missing. Is the Stevens guy so vehemently pro-nazi and and pro-violence that the association really should be enough? I'm inclined to believe no else they'd have better and more extensive quotes to use against him.

Again, I'm coming from a place of not knowing any of these people's backgrounds or history, but if we are supposed to believe them to be villians of such a high degree, I want a stronger case than those people say so and if you spent a few weeks of research on it you'd agree, trust us.

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

He is a vocal supporter of the gallery who has repeatedly gone on TV to defend the gallery holding white power events, a gallery who's intent is to legitimize Nazism and far right racist ideology through art and lectures. To me, that's Nazi figurehead.

The gallery leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.
This makes them not just a place that allows Nazis a platform, but an active member.

This info and more is in the links provided. Read it please.

The gallery is accused of repeatedly bringing in white-supremacists. The guy in the video is accused of being a neo-nazi figurehead.

The only evidence I’m seeing though is the gallery bringing in one guy I’d clearly label white supremacist, and then a bunch of people that same to have the wrong opinions on immigration, but it’s hardly clear that there is anymore evidence than that with which to convict.

This matters to me because here in Canada a student assistant was brought in for discipline and became the center of a storm for playing a fee minutes if an interview that included UT prof Jordan Peterson. She was accused of promoting hate and violence(and even committing violence herself) for the act of playing the video. All this because Jordan Peterson is a ‘well known’ alt-right extremist...

The evidence I’ve seen here has the same stink to it and so I’m reluctant to just convict the accused on the mobs say so.

If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

Please enlighten me then. The only evidence I have seen so far that the guy in the video is a "well known Nazi figurehead" is your statement of such, and the crowd in the video accusing him of it. The articles I've looked up and an admittedly short/half hearted google search have turned up no evidence either save for his appearance again in the video. Do you have a better link or reference for me?

Context matters. Truth matters.

Knowing now that he's a well known Nazi figurehead, a spokesman for the pro Nazi gallery being protested, do you see how the title and description are both utter bullshit lies, a 100% misrepresentation of the truth here?

He is not called a Nazi for supporting free speech. That's a blatant, disgusting, Nazi sympathizing lie he hoped you would repeat. I wish you were ashamed of that, but you just defend it.

His sentiments on his sign aren't the unacceptable sentiments he's removed for, they are the cover for the Nazism he espouses and supports, and the red herring he hoped would distract you from them...It worked, even though you know the truth it still works. *facepalm.

I'm ashamed for you that you got suckered into defending Nazis because for two minutes he managed to appear reasonable and you're willing to completely ignore context, just like he planned.

I'm more ashamed for you that you bought it so deeply that you repeated the bullshit, totally false descriptions without considering you are being duped by a nazi into supporting their cause.

@newtboy
Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

Not only did I never claim that, I have trouble figuring why you think I would? My second sentence again:"My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies."

I oppose meeting speech with force excepting when that speech is being used to promote violence or harm, I'm also willing to allow that 'speech' can also amount to being disruptive or harassment like your notion of bringing inappropriate material to a kids park, or using a megaphone inches from someone's face.

I kind of thought on that point we'd find agreement, or at least understanding and agree to disagree?

Opening a new point from you're statement:He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood.

I've read a few of the links you provided, and looked up a few articles on the gallery and I'm having troubles with the characterization. Do you have a good specific link that more clearly focuses on the nazi support from the gallery? The reading I've done seems to describe an art gallery, that allowed exhibits and talks from far-right and at least arguably fascist speakers on possibly a few occasions. You seem to talk like it was operating openly as a neo-nazi HQ.

So, what I've looked up so far, it does look an awful lot like a gallery pulled in speakers that people disliked, so they rallied to shut down the gallery as punishment for allowing wrong-think to be spoken. Then when guys like the one in the video came to defend free-speech, they too were classed as nazi's and lumped in as enemies too. Last article I found by the guy in video, so maybe he's lying, but other articles I've found also suggest that the gallery operated more generally rather than being an explicitly alt-right hub:
https://medium.com/@dctvbot/i-regret-nothing-c05401636032

Pure provocation.

Bullshit, he's not protesting in favor of free speech, he's instigating by supporting hate speech and violent hate groups as a spokesman for such groups inserting himself in a protest against them.
He is the equivalent of an Illinois Nazi marching in Skokie during an NAACP rally. That's a great description of what he's doing. He just isn't wearing a uniform.

I defend his right to hate speech, but not in a place and time designed to provoke violence. That's what this is, intentional provocation.

He was being a well known NAZI at an anti Nazi rally! I guess that's not enough for you to consider his presence legal provocation? It clearly was enough for the cops to think so. Before the cut he was probably telling them how subhuman they are, or race traitors supporting sub humans if they're whites. That's what his groups support, and is exactly the type of speech he was defending.

Could I go to the front of a church and hock statues of pagan gods raping Jesus without expecting a more violent reaction? No.

Provocation IS a defense to violence, not that I see any true violence in the video, but it would be justifiable if there were because his presence is definitely, undeniably, intentionally provocative.

Some ideologies are so disgusting that supporting them in public is legal provocation and does excuse violence legally. Advocating child rape would be an example, Nazism is another.