- Should the First Amendment — which protects the freedom of speech, assembly and petition —protect this protest? Why or why not?
- What types of rules or restrictions could be put in place to allow the march to take place but limit the potential for harm or violence? How would you control the activities allowed, location, timing, symbols and messages displayed, etc.?
- Do you think citizens should have a right to prevent fearful imagery or hateful language from being brought into their own communities?
- Whose responsibility is it to prevent violence during a political demonstration? The organizers? Participants? Those who show up to counterprotest? City leaders? Police?
- Is providing a public announcement a reasonable way to make sure that people who disagree with a protest’s topic stay away and avoid conflict? Should people who disagree with the ideas being presented at a demonstration be able to confront the demonstrators?
- In today’s social and political climate, are there any views or symbols that should be deemed too controversial for public protests?
Marching With Symbols of Hate?
Yes.
Side Score: 11
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom of speech in no way means freedom from repercussions. If you walk down the street with a swastika on your arm you will get people engaging you. Some may even resort to violence. I can't say I applaud that but that's the price you pay for marching with a hate symbol. Basically you have a right to yell to the world what an ass you are, but you have to expect the world will yell back. Side: Yes.
Yes this should be allowed, is it right no but by the consitution they are legally able to protest in this park and they also gave a date time and place so people are able to avoid this whole thing so we can not legally stop them from this protest Zach Tyler Tarrence Side: Yes.
1
point
0
points
hate speech is a false concept as it is. Seeing as saying anything that someone may disagree with, or find that they dislike in general. Can be considered hate speech by that same person. That's why the concept of hate speech is primarily antithetical to what we see as a free society, that's why hate speech laws are arguably more dangerous than most standard laws. That's how you end up with people being jailed for simply sharing their opinions, and those opinions not even be offensive. Side: Yes.
|
1
point
1
point
No, because the first amendment said it has to be peacefully. So if this march turns violent after I make my decision of saying that it's gonna be violent, then I have the right to punish the party members for causing mass hysteria for the surrounding citizens without hearing from the public. Side: No.
0
points
1
point
I would agree with you, where it not for the fact that simply having a rally. Does not count for terrorizing members of the community. Besides, if that was a precedent, then no rallies could ever be organized. The Portland BLM protest/rallies were allowed to continue by the local officials, despite buildings being set on fire, innocent bystanders being beaten in the streets. These far/alt-right protest/rallies, by majority, adhere to the law much better than those on the other side of the political spectrum. Despite how atrocious and idiotic their views are, they still have their rights. Side: Yes.
1
point
These far/alt-right protest/rallies, by majority, adhere to the law much better than those on the other side of the political spectrum. Why do you tell so many lies? Right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any Side: No.
|
