Republicans aren't the ones burning down shit, banning free speech on campus, creating violence.

"Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism"

Snide and factually wrong, it's his televised support for Nazis and their secret meeting gallery and the public perception that he is a Nazi himself because he supports them and doesn't denounce them that's considered support for nazis, not his sign, not free speech.

"Shows a man holding a sign saying ""the right to openly discuss ideas must be defended", in Hackney, England. Apparently this is not an acceptable sentiment these days; I guess classical liberalism had a pretty good run, but it may be over now."

Also snide and factually wrong. It's a blatant lie that the sentiment on his sign is what they find unacceptable, it's his support for what's seen as a secret nazi/white power meeting hall camouflaged as an art gallery in a neighborhood that doesn't want it, not an open discussion but a secret meeting hall for secret alt-right meetings without openness or discussion.

Clear enough?
I'm guessing not, because you would be forced to admit your mistake, something you seem incapable of doing, but I'll surely get over it.

Edit: seems I've been capable of an excess of civil disagreement...I'm incapable of civility with liars....and funny enough you didn't argue that you didn't lie, only that you didn't know you were snide, which title and description clearly are.

Second edit: I wonder if he supported the same gallery nay secret meeting place for secret invite only meetings for terrorist jihadists, would you still bend over backwards to say all speech matters and his support doesn't equate to support for terrorists? What's the difference?

Don't pretend to be so oblivious.
The gallery is one person making decisions on who to allow to hold private rallies in secret at her establishment, and she chooses Nazis and white power personalities. I thought you support taking individual responsibility.
The Nation of Islam, and I'm no fan at all, is a huge, multinational organization of millions I assume lead by some form of committee and encompassing a wide range of views and opposing extremes....They did not all choose to be associated with that one extremists nor did they all agree with him by far, then or now, only some did. That's similar to the same question but changing "nation of Islam" to "America". Obviously that's comparing apples to the president's drag queen makeup.

I won't comment much on Canada blm because I don't know them and don't choose to take the time needed to sleuth out some truths about them, but assuming what you say is correct it sounds like they have some racism in their midst that they should weed out before they become the monster they wish to destroy.

Brett Stevens, did you read any of the links? Or my quotes from them? Did you visit America.com, his website, or his blog amerika? (i won't) Do you have a clue who he is and the racist mass murderer he celebrates?

They have a right to speak, the crowd has a right to protest and take any civil legal action they choose to remove the soapbox from their neighborhood. I never said different. You must have confused me with the protesters.
They don't have a right to shout or hold their signs emblazoned with their stupid wrong things intended to provoke at a protest and attempt to spark violence, even if they cleverly camouflage it so on the surface their message seems agreeable, which is what I think was his intent. If successful, he would gain more fuel for the argument that the racists and Nazis planning a violent race war aren't the problem, it's the fascist liberal grandma shovers and sign thieves we should really be worried about....just like the boogaloos in America that caused many if not most of the riots, shot cops, and planned multiple mass murders and bombings all of which they intended to pin on blm.

They don't actually need any place to speak today, there's a soapbox in every cellphone.

But

This facility was holding their alt-right events in secret, hiding their speech itself. They wanted it hidden. You can't bemoan their voices being silenced while also defending their secret rallies which no one who might confront or correct them was told happened, can you?

And side note
The government isn't stopping them, so it's not censorship before that idea crops up.

Again, your bar for crying violence in this instance is subterranean. No one would ever be prosecuted for the level of violence without injury that he suffered, nor compensated for his miniscule loss of cardboard. Do you see him hit, kicked, punched, shoved hard, anything? Time stamp please. I'll change my tune if he was actually injured, I didn't see it anywhere, just his sign yanked after being slowly shoved away from one specific spot.

Could you honestly say ANY right wing event, especially any alt-right event infiltrated by a fairly quiet blm activist with a sign bemoaning police corruption would be as gentle and non violent? Edit: I doubt it.

The point of this video as presented is to pretend that's the case, that the shove from grandma is societies downfall, a direct attack on freedom not a rejection of a defender and facilitator of racists and Nazis (if he's not one himself). The Nazis and racists resurfacing and arming themselves (happening here in America) are nothing to be upset about or oppose....they're good people, not like disgusting anti free speech granny and those other freedom haters.
I'm astonished I'm apparently the only one willing to object to that long ago debbunked distortion of reality.

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 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

Not that I'm lazy, but I don't care enough to read every single article you linked. I read the couple that seemed most promising, and then I went and did some searches for more evidence, I haven't found better evidence than what I mentioned.

Do you have a specific link, or one of those above, that clearly lays out the intent of gallery or any other evidence against the video guy than, he dared suggest the gallery was covered under free speech?

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.

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.

I'm just guessing, but I bet his chosen spot was right behind the speakers who were on camera...so would be stealing their soapbox. He could have been inside the gate, 3 ft away, and held his sign just as visibly....but nope, he had to be in the middle of the protest against Nazis telling them they're wrong, you just need to give those poor Nazis and white power organizations more of a platform and more time to espouse their hatred, and ignore the real violence and murders they commit.

Ok, you see a violent attack, mob violence, I see an older woman gently walking him out and others yelling, not touching.
You see a violent robbery of his sign, I see his tool for disruption being removed.
You act like his treatment was SO far over the line and 100% unacceptable. I see him treated with kid gloves in a way that his group wouldn't even fathom, because they use ACTUAL violence to do ACTUAL harm, not slow tender shoving without hands or feet out of the middle of their event, punches, kicks, machetes, torches, nooses, etc. This wasn't even turnabout, and turnabout is always fair play.

If this crosses your line, and this group needs some repercussions, what does his actually violent hate group need? More than a protest.

So, when is your child's next birthday party? I guess I can come and advocate for more incest pornography, and you would just let me be? Bullshit.
As you saw, the police were there and not getting involved. It's not honest to say "it's the police and court system you want to pull in" when the police were there.

Again, what park do your children have parties in, I'll be there with my sign before the party starts so I won't be "invading" your party and I expect you to protect me from all the angry parents....yeah right. That's asinine. If I intentionally provoke them to violence, that's on me.

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. He is (in part) exactly what they are protesting. It's almost a certainty that before his heavily edited video starts he was being loud and disruptive, then acted reasonable and meek after instigating violence with his typical hate speech. Provocation actually is a legal defense to violence.

Can you at least admit the title and description are total lies? They called him a Nazi for being one, not for supporting free speech.
The liberals removed him from their event for being a well known Nazi, not the sentiment on his sign.
The way this is portrayed is absolutely bullshit. He's not a victim he's an instigator, he wasn't hurt, he's absolutely not interested in freedom of speech for everyone.

I'm sure the sign-holder's gallery isn't filled with rainbows and fuzzy ducklings, but he wasn't the equivalent of Illinois nazis marching in Skokie, either. The old school Liberal antidote to hateful speech is more and better speech, not mob violence.

It seems that one of his crimes was showing material in support of Donald Trump, who, loathe him if you will, is still the legally elected president of one of the UKs chief allies. If his supporters can't make their case in public then I fear for the future of civil discourse.

Regardless of the content of whatever expression this guy may have made elsewhere, in the video he really is protesting in favor of free speech, and he really is being assaulted while the cops wander away. I hold with the friends of Voltaire, who, though they might disapprove of what he says would defend to the death his right to say it.

As for editing the video, what could he have been doing in the lead up to this scene? Hawking Trump bobble-heads?

I openly admit I’m plenty ignorant on the background to all this.

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. You had a very large crowd around him not content to shout him down, but intent on using force to chase him off and trying to again use force to take his sign from him. Thats over the line and I don’t care who is doing the pushing or what the sign actually says. As above, if the sign or message is itself a promotion of violence, then its the police and court system you want to pull in, not the mob or vigilantism.

The little background I read from your links though suggests the large crowd had been there repeatedly with the same purpose of getting the gallery/HQ shutdown. Seems awful likely to me guy with sign was then standing outside said gallery and all the more aught have the right to stand near it with a simple sign, without being dismissed as the one ‘invading’ or stealing the protestors platform. To be honest most of the discussion about giving or blocking platforms reeks to me of just renaming stuff so folks can duck the well worn arguments in support of free speech.

Lol. Yeah, right, more liberal (my liberal friends think I'm pretty conservative, I say I'm old school republican... socially liberal and fiscally responsible, definitely not a neocon)...but do you feel the same about BLM activists disrupting other events, they should be allowed to stay and speak, holding their anti police violence signs high even at anti BLM rallies? Would they be allowed?

I agree, getting slightly physical with him was stooping ever so slightly closer to his ilk's level, although the extent they got physical was pretty minor, wasn't it?
Oh no...they grabbed his cardboard sign equivalent to an all lives matter sign at a BLM march. VIOLENCE!! Pay him one cent in restitution if he sues. It's not a civil rights case, it's what he was hoping for.

When a known white power spokesman shows up at a protest against a white power organization he's associated with it's international provocation. Don't be naive.

Removing him by having an older woman slowly walk into him until he's out of the middle of the protest doesn't bother me one bit. I don't call that violence, I call it the opposite. If they punched him, violently grabbed him (not his sign), kicked him, or actually assaulted him I might think differently, but I saw none of that.

If he wasn't doing this in the middle of a protest against his pro Nazi racist organization in an effort to disrupt and distract from the anti racist crowd, I might feel differently. He has every right to his voice, but not their soapbox. No one stopped him from standing outside the active protest area with any sign.

They grabbed his cardboard, he was so intimidated that he held on and went back into the angry mob with it instead of letting them steal it, then cries for years about how he was attacked violently by an entire mob that didn't touch him. He was poking the bull, got a snort, and cries he got both horns.

What I saw was a person who was identified as a well known racist spokesman intentionally provoking anti racists at an anti racist event and being calmly moved out of the crowd without anyone laying hands on him.

I did not see what the title and description describes at all.

It was his well known public support of Nazism being considered support for Nazism, not free speech.

It was not the disingenuous words on his sign they found unacceptable it was his public support of racist positions that were the unacceptable sentiments. (disingenuous because I assume he doesn't think blacks should have a right to openly join discussions of ideas, but his sign meant Nazi/white supremacist opinions matter and you must let them espouse them whenever and wherever they wish including at anti racist events or you're anti free speech...which I find to be hypocritical nonsense).

It took me two seconds to figure out this was fake or at best a total misrepresentation, and under two minutes to find plenty of evidence to that effect.

They only look bad when viewed totally out of context. This was edited to create a false narrative that some random innocent meek individual supporting rational discourse was attacked by a violent gang of anti free speech liberals, which is asinine and a blatant lie. He's a professional racist instigators defending racist ideologies at a racist propaganda center being protested, not free speech but his freedom to espouse racial hatred unopposed and uncontradicted.
I'm sad this bullshit is still getting passed around without explanation three plus years later.

I bet if we saw the five minutes before this conveniently edited video started, no one could question them calling him a Nazi and shouting him away, since he is in fact one, one who actively and publicly works to legitimize Nazism and other racist ideologies...he is a long time professional public aggressor and race baiter.

He has every right to discuss his ideas, the rest of us have every right to vocally disagree. When his ideas are actually supporting racial violence, it's pretty disingenuous to complain when they spark some "verbal violence".

Sorry @Buttle it seems you fell for some far right bullshit.
This video is apparently three years old.
It also hides the truth of what's happening, this is not some man on the street, he's a public figurehead of white supremacist organisations in the UK, standing in front of what amounts to their headquarters.


From Reddit-
u/kanyeguisada did the work on this three years ago - here's there very level headed account of this.

"So looking into this...
The place being protested was the LD50 gallery in Hackney, London. They and owner Lucia Diego describe themselves as "neo-reactionary" but they are in fact supporting literal fascists and white supremacists and were trying to become the organizing spot in London for such groups to give them legitimacy and attempt to convert white progressives to their cause through the art world:

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ld50-gallery-protest-lucia-diego-donald-trump-alt-right-hackney-dalston-a7596346.html

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2017/03/video-protesters-gather-outside-dalston-art-gallery-over-controversial-exhibition/

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/politics/ld50-gallery-anti-fascist-protesters-march-through-dalston-1-4907083

https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2017/02/25/ld50-gallery-protest-video-anti-fascists-clash-lone-counter-protester/

https://shutdownld50.tumblr.com/

The "free speech protestor" in this video is Daniel/DC Miller, who not only gave his name to the media, but is a public figure apparently widely known in Hackney for his support of LD50 and who holds (and tries to hold) public lectures on literal white-supremacist fascists:

https://www.facebook.com/events/100614430464838/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/it-ok-to-punch-nazi-art-gallery

http://thebaffler.com/latest/ld50-nolan

Now I'm all for free speech in the US. I think even white supremacists like the KKK have the right to speak their disgusting speech and hold rallies and people thinking otherwise should ask themselves what happens when speech they support suddenly might become considered hate speech. For instance many people on the left who support BDS/sanctions on Israel are often accused of "hate speech" simply for calling Israel an apartheid state. Free speech isn't just something the right cares about.

However, other people have the right to free speech too, and can yell right back at you and of course https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png. The guy in this video wasn't just some guy off the street supporting free speech rights but was actually a supporter of literal far-right white-supremacist fascism and was known to the community before this happened, so maybe hold off on the outrage about how mean the protestors were to him until you get the whole picture."

*fakenews