Trump-loving white supremacists learn a hard ‘free speech’ lesson
… namely, that criminal harassment and assault are not “free speech,” as so many on the #altright would like to believe:
Click here for reuse options!A notorious white supremacist movement leader is among three men who are facing criminal charges for assaulting and verbally harassing a black female protester at a Donald Trump rally in Louisville in March.
According to Louisville TV news station WDRB, Matthew Heimbach, the well-known leader of the racist and white nationalist Traditionalist Youth Network, has been issued a criminal summons to appear in Jefferson District Court. He faces charges for harassment with physical contact toward Shiya Nwanguma, one of the anti-Trump protesters at the March rally. WDRB notes the court also issued criminal summons for Alvin Bamberger, a 75-year-old Ohio resident and Korean War Veterans Association member, and Indiana resident Joseph Pryor.
As Raw Story previously reported in March, Nwanguma, a black woman and University of Louisville student, said she was kicked out of the Trump rally after being shoved and screamed at by Heimbach and other Trump supporters.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: dave-dr-gonzo
David Hirsch, a.k.a. Dave "Doctor" Gonzo*, is a renegade record producer, video producer, writer, reformed corporate shill, and still-registered lobbyist for non-one-percenter performing artists and musicians. He lives in a heavily fortified compound in one of Manhattan's less trendy neighborhoods.
* Hirsch is the third person to use the pseudonym, a not-so-veiled tribute to journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson, with the permission of his predecessors Gene Gaudette of American Politics Journal (currently webmaster and chief bottlewasher at Liberaland) and Stephen Meese at Smashmouth Politics.
42 responses to Trump-loving white supremacists learn a hard ‘free speech’ lesson
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
lolana July 21st, 2016 at 16:48
Well, he sounds like a lovely man.
Roctuna July 21st, 2016 at 18:51
Lovely men like him are typical Drumpf supporters
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 09:15
Me ?
Sorry . I wouldn’t vote for a Repluocrat fascist like Hillary or DOnald. Would you?
I want someone that supports our social right to freedom of association – which is what libertarians do.
Roctuna July 23rd, 2016 at 10:40
You sure you’re replying to the correct thread? I even defended your right to freely associate with all the rest of us at LL on another post. What’s your problem?
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 10:44
No I am not? Which is why I began with “Me?” .
If I was wrong I apologize. :)
Comicus July 23rd, 2016 at 11:58
Do you believe this ‘social right to freedom of association’ should be unrestricted?
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 12:16
lol, the concept of FREEDOM of Association IS RESTRICTED!
It is restricted to free and voluntary associations ONLY.
Not just the ones you want to enter.
Obviously master-slave associations are not supported by the concept of freedom.
Comicus July 23rd, 2016 at 14:39
Now that you’ve stated the obvious, please answer the question.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 14:43
I did answer … they are RESTRICTED !
Restricted to free and voluntary associations.
And you’d be surprised by people who tell me freedom of association means you are free to have any association you want.
If they are free and voluntary asociations ? Absolutely no restrictions.
Comicus July 23rd, 2016 at 17:34
So, you accept that one’s ‘freedom of association’ should in certain cases be restricted for the benefit of society.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 17:38
NO, I said some people don’t have full rights. I said ALL voluntary and free associations for those with full rights should be allowed.
The concept of freedom necessarily means there is a restriction on some associations (those that are not free and voluntray). BUT NOT a restriction to freedom of association ( for those with full adult rights)
Comicus July 23rd, 2016 at 17:42
You bellyfeel doubleplusgood doublethink, Howie.
whatthe46 July 23rd, 2016 at 17:46
laughing.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 18:03
Hmm sounds intelligible. :)
And you can usually tell when people feel they may not be correct or winning. They make comments like you just did.
Let me sum up again . Freedom of association for those with full adult rights should ALWAYS be allowed.
Those associations that do not qualify as free and voluntary OBVIOUSLY are not supported/covered
Comicus July 23rd, 2016 at 19:20
If they’re not supported or covered, they’re restricted because we deem them detrimental to society.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 19:27
No, they are restricted BECAUSE the concept of FREEDOM doesn’t support non-free associations!.
Not because the state imposes restrictions on the right of that freedom.
The right itself HAS the restriction in its very concept.
Black things restrict themselves from being white, etc..
You asked me if there were restrictions , and I pointed them out. Internal restrictions – not external ones.
Comicus July 23rd, 2016 at 19:44
Cognitive dissonance at it’s finest.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 19:49
Well I hope someone here who disagrees with me will at least admit they understand what I am saying.
I personally believe my statement is clear. Freedom of Association is an absolute right to the extent others may not violate it.
The restrictions in the associations are set by the concept of FREEDOM that appears in the phrase.
Not by others or the state limiting that right.
Comicus July 23rd, 2016 at 21:40
You claim, “I personally believe my statement is clear. Freedom of Association is an absolute right to the extent others may not violate it.”
The definition of ‘absolute: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absolute
b. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions: an absolute right.
You can’t even make a consistent argument to support your claim. Your arguments are risible.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 24th, 2016 at 08:38
And I said “to the extent that others may not violate it” or did you choose to ignore that part – which is why Included it
It is an absolute right among people/society. The actual concept has a possibility of changing BUT NOT the idea that others may not “violate” that right or limit them. Rights will always imply that.
Comicus July 24th, 2016 at 09:36
By definition, it’s not absolute when there is a limit.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 24th, 2016 at 09:47
and I didn’t say it was absolute, very few things are? I did take the time to qualify that by saying IN WHAT WAY it is absolute.
ALL rights ABSOLUTELY mean/require that no other person or entity may violate them or “limit” them – else they are not rights.
The concept that goes into any particular rights may not be absolute and is open to possible change.
I DEFINED what I meant by absolute. If you can’t accept that concept, then fine. Take this as a refinement.
I’m open to change.
Comicus July 24th, 2016 at 10:04
You don’t get to make up your own definitions for words, Howard.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 24th, 2016 at 10:10
I didn’t … what I did was limit what the extent of what absolute applied to!
Namely it is absolute that others have no right to violate of limit the rights of others.
It is not absolute that the concept of freedom of association remains always the same and absolute
Comicus July 24th, 2016 at 10:42
It’s the conservative version of 1984. This clown can’t be real. Well played, troll.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 24th, 2016 at 14:58
If you believe that you or others have the right to over-ride the rights of others, please tell us ? Are you a god ?
Comicus July 24th, 2016 at 23:12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6LD6ITN2dk
Larry Schmitt July 21st, 2016 at 16:52
Wait, I thought free speech means I can hurl any vile names I want to at you, and you can’t do anything about it.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 21st, 2016 at 17:32
It also means freedom of ALL forms of (non-violent) speech and press – including economic speech and economic press.
And what you are talking about is the concept of TOLERANCE which is required to support ALL our civil rights.
And you can do something – you can hurl vile speech back :D
bpollen July 22nd, 2016 at 02:41
I think sarcasm left tread-marks on your scalp…
whatthe46 July 22nd, 2016 at 03:15
hahahahahahahaha
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 22nd, 2016 at 12:47
Good, do you have an intelligent comment, or is that beyond your capabilities ?
bpollen July 22nd, 2016 at 16:07
Your previous post showed you missed the point of his post. I pointed that out, albeit humorously. The lack of intelligent comment on YOUR part was what I was commenting on. Irony!!!
You should get your projector fixed. It’s all fuzzy and out of focus.
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 22nd, 2016 at 17:04
Well you need to know that your postings are to unintelligent to be funny then
bpollen July 23rd, 2016 at 03:11
Speaking of unintelligent, it’s “too” not “to.”
And, funny or not, I made a very accurate description of sarcasm going right over your head. Vainly trying to prove your mental “superiority” can’t change that. Especially since you make blatant grammar errors and totally miss the point of posts. Just makes you look foolish when you broadcast it…
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 09:12
Well, regardless, it sucked :)
Do you have a comment on freedom of speech/press ?
bpollen July 23rd, 2016 at 18:29
Yeah, I have a comment: it’s in the Constitution.
But free speech and freedom of the press does not mean “consequence-free.”
Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 23rd, 2016 at 18:49
No it doesn’t. You can say or print a response or boycott the person if you wish.
What you may not do is limit or violate his right to these rights of freedom of speech and press merely by calling what you do a consequence.
Just remember, these rights cover economic speech and economic press too.
bpollen July 23rd, 2016 at 21:13
Geez, Howie, get a friggin’ grip. Free speech and free press ARE limited. Look up slander and libel. And Gawker learned ALL about consequences. You have the right to say whatever the fornicate you want. You also get to pay the freight. You don’t like the way it’s set up, create your own little Galt’s Gulch and give survival a go.
amersham1046 July 22nd, 2016 at 01:54
Some people think they are more free than other
StoneyCurtisll July 22nd, 2016 at 10:36
When you have people as devoted to Donald Trump as this fanatic..
Be afraid, very afraid if he is elected.
http://static8.fark.com/img/300×161/3178803.jpeg
Yes that is Laura Ingraham giving the Nazi salute to the Donald at the RNC Rally.
Mark W. Mumma July 22nd, 2016 at 16:11
YOU are just PRECIOUS StonedCurtisll. Truly adorable.