Is Harassment of Public Figures Acceptable: Your Sincere Opinion

[Amarok]

Auschwitz and Dachau should remain standing forever as a reminder and warning to all future generations.

Difference being nobody kept  Auschwitz around to glorify the Nazi's which is what the  Daughters of the Confederacy put the statues up to do. This isn't sober reflection it's white supremacist propaganda created by white supremacists to revise history .Second if your such a buff for persevering the glorification of evil groups then surly you would no issue with a group of Al qaeda sympathizers putting up a statue of the 9/11 hijackers on the site of the twin towers standing proudly over a pile of burning American flags with Koran passages about killing the infidels proudly displayed.

[Angrboda]

The threat to democracy — from the left

For several years now, scholars have argued that the world is experiencing a “democratic recession.” They have noted that the movement of countries toward democracy has slowed or stopped and even, in some places, reversed. They also note a general hollowing out of democracy in the advanced, industrial world. When we think about this problem, inevitably and rightly we worry about President Trump, his attacks on judges, the free press and his own Justice Department. But there is also a worrying erosion of a core democratic norm taking place on the left.

It has become commonplace to hear cries on the left to deny controversial figures on the right a platform to express their views. Colleges have disinvited speakers such as Condoleezza Rice and Charles Murray. Other campuses were unwilling or unable to allow conservative guests to actually speak, with protests overwhelming the events.

A similar controversy now involves Stephen K. Bannon, who, in recent months, has been making the rounds on the airwaves and in print — including an interview I did with him on CNN. Some have claimed that Bannon, since leaving the administration, is simply unimportant and irrelevant and thus shouldn’t be given a microphone. But if that were the case, surely the media, which after all is a for-profit industry, would notice the lack of public interest and stop inviting him.

The reality is that the people running the Economist, the Financial Times, “60 Minutes,” the New Yorker and many other organizations that have recently sought to feature Bannon know he is an intelligent and influential ideologist, a man who built the largest media platform for the new right, ran Trump’s successful campaign before serving in the White House, and continues to articulate and energize the populism that’s been on the rise throughout the Western world. He might be getting his 15 minutes of fame that will peter out, but, for now, he remains a compelling figure.

The real fear that many on the left have is not that Bannon is dull and uninteresting, but the opposite — that his ideas, some of which can reasonably be described as evoking white nationalism, will prove seductive and persuasive to too many people. Hence his detractors’ solution: Don’t give him a platform, and hope that this will make his ideas go away. But they won’t. In fact, by trying to suppress Bannon and others on the right, liberals are likely making their ideas seem more potent. Did the efforts of communist countries to muzzle capitalist ideas work?

Liberals need to be reminded of the origins of their ideology. In 1859, when governments around the world were still deeply repressive — banning books, censoring commentary and throwing people in jail for their beliefs — John Stuart Mill explained in his seminal work, “On Liberty,” that protection against governments was not enough: “There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose . . . its own ideas and practices . . . on those who dissent from them.” This classic defense of free speech, which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes later called the “freedom for the thought that we hate,” is under pressure in the United States — and from the left.

[The Grand Nudger]

Worth noting that white nationalism hasn't actually been making much in the way of gains on the right.  They've always been white nationalists to some degree or another.  It's their perpetual wedge issue.  White nationalism has been cannibalizing the left, disaffected and completely unmoored from any ideological or moral certainty. Normalizing and providing a funhouse mirror justification for the narrative above..and blaming themselves in typical self loathing leftist fashion.

FWIW, that's always been the origin of the rights ability to leverage unrepresentative power. They may be dead wrong on social issues and what freedom of speech entails...but they believe it with unwavering certainty, and this motivates them at the polls. Leftists can be right all they want..but if it presents itself as a wheedling and compromising sort of right..they may as well not go to the trouble in the first place.

[Minimalist]

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy..... or a bigger fucking prick.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/ted-cru...survivors/

Ted Cruz run out of DC restaurant by protesters shouting ‘We believe survivors!’

Good.  Eat shit.

[Angrboda]

Kiah Morris, the only African-American woman in Vermont’s House of Representatives, has resigned, citing years of racially motivated harassment and threats.

“There was vandalism within our home,” she said. “We found there were swastikas painted on the trees in the woods near where we live. We had home invasions.”

“It has come and gone and in different waves, but then it picked back up again and of course we are back in an election season so there’s always more,” she said.

[Pat Mustard]

The threat to democracy — from the left

For several years now, scholars have argued that the world is experiencing a “democratic recession.” They have noted that the movement of countries toward democracy has slowed or stopped and even, in some places, reversed. They also note a general hollowing out of democracy in the advanced, industrial world. When we think about this problem, inevitably and rightly we worry about President Trump, his attacks on judges, the free press and his own Justice Department. But there is also a worrying erosion of a core democratic norm taking place on the left.

It has become commonplace to hear cries on the left to deny controversial figures on the right a platform to express their views. Colleges have disinvited speakers such as Condoleezza Rice and Charles Murray. Other campuses were unwilling or unable to allow conservative guests to actually speak, with protests overwhelming the events.

A similar controversy now involves Stephen K. Bannon, who, in recent months, has been making the rounds on the airwaves and in print — including an interview I did with him on CNN. Some have claimed that Bannon, since leaving the administration, is simply unimportant and irrelevant and thus shouldn’t be given a microphone. But if that were the case, surely the media, which after all is a for-profit industry, would notice the lack of public interest and stop inviting him.

The reality is that the people running the Economist, the Financial Times, “60 Minutes,” the New Yorker and many other organizations that have recently sought to feature Bannon know he is an intelligent and influential ideologist, a man who built the largest media platform for the new right, ran Trump’s successful campaign before serving in the White House, and continues to articulate and energize the populism that’s been on the rise throughout the Western world. He might be getting his 15 minutes of fame that will peter out, but, for now, he remains a compelling figure.

The real fear that many on the left have is not that Bannon is dull and uninteresting, but the opposite — that his ideas, some of which can reasonably be described as evoking white nationalism, will prove seductive and persuasive to too many people. Hence his detractors’ solution: Don’t give him a platform, and hope that this will make his ideas go away. But they won’t. In fact, by trying to suppress Bannon and others on the right, liberals are likely making their ideas seem more potent. Did the efforts of communist countries to muzzle capitalist ideas work?

Liberals need to be reminded of the origins of their ideology. In 1859, when governments around the world were still deeply repressive — banning books, censoring commentary and throwing people in jail for their beliefs — John Stuart Mill explained in his seminal work, “On Liberty,” that protection against governments was not enough: “There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose . . . its own ideas and practices . . . on those who dissent from them.” This classic defense of free speech, which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes later called the “freedom for the thought that we hate,” is under pressure in the United States — and from the left.

This belief that because one is or was a public figure they then have unfettered right to speak wherever they like on whatever they like is bullshit. If Bannon said what he says in Americha over here he'd be rightly done for hate speech. And frankly, Rice should have to defend herself before a war crimes tribunal before being allowed a single paying gig more.

You know, we on the left and in the centre get continuously slaughtered over protesting the leeway the far right (which includes the vast majority of right wing parties at this stage) get on the public stage by the same people who are taking massive concrete steps to shut everybody else up. The levels of censorship against those who don't toe to right wing orthodoxy today is a chilling destruction of freedom of speech.

[Fireball]

Kiah Morris, the only African-American woman in Vermont’s House of Representatives, has resigned, citing years of racially motivated harassment and threats.

“There was vandalism within our home,” she said. “We found there were swastikas painted on the trees in the woods near where we live. We had home invasions.”

“It has come and gone and in different waves, but then it picked back up again and of course we are back in an election season so there’s always more,” she said.

Of course, these are crimes, and as a result are completely uncalled for; the perps should be given a fair trial and a fine hangin'. Refusing to serve someone in a restaurant I can understand.

[Divinity]

If they think sexual assault is okay, I see no reason they shouldn't be harassed in public places.

[CapnAwesome]

People on this thread cannot see the forest for the trees. You think that these sorts of things won't happen to your party when they are in power? Of course they will, now that it's okay apparently and approved of by the base.

And I bet you all will throw a hissy fit when that time comes.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't have any hopes that any party I'd ever be a party of will ever be in power in the US in my lifetime....but if the impossible happened, and the leaders of that non existent party got booed out of a restaurant for being an intolerable dick...why would that bother me?

If anything, I'd want to be the one that booed them out. I think it's a shame that more Reds aren't taking their Dear Leaders to task. That shouldn't be left to the Blues...but it is.