Folsom Street Fair - World Commentary

[afm199]

I like German culture

The new thing in Germany is bestiality clubs.

 

[MysterYvil]

Not so much asking you, but if we go with this line of thinking (makes some sense to me), can we apply it to Milo Yiannapolous (sp.) in Berkeley, etc.?

People know Milo's going to be there and speak. If you don't like him and his views, don't go, rather than disrupt and try to shout down? If protestors tried to shut down the FSF....thoughts?

Hopefully not now political, just interested in whether viewpoints stay consistent.

I think mine stays consistent, and IIRC my posts in this thread and that one reflect that.

For example, personally I don't like any part of pro football. So I don't go, don't watch, don't post about it (except here, this once), and I don't judge those who do enjoy it.

 

[MysterYvil]

The new thing in Germany is bestiality clubs.

I ain't googling that!

 

[jdhu]

I think mine stays consistent, and IIRC my posts in this thread and that one reflect that.

For example, personally I don't like any part of pro football. So I don't go, don't watch, don't post about it (except here, this once), and I don't judge those who do enjoy it.

Got it. We are talking about public areas (SF streets, UC campus), so in a sense, we are all owners. Thus, we all have some (minute) ownership interest in dictating what happens on these lands.

But, obviously, you can't accommodate everyone's views, all the time. So, if a group obtains a permit, etc., then I think you have to hold your nose and think long run.

 

[CocoLoco]

Not so much asking you, but if we go with this line of thinking (makes some sense to me), can we apply it to Milo Yiannapolous (sp.) in Berkeley, etc.?

People know Milo's going to be there and speak. If you don't like him and his views, don't go, rather than disrupt and try to shout down? If protestors tried to shut down the FSF....thoughts?

Hopefully not now political, just interested in whether viewpoints stay consistent.

I agree 100%. The part where this falls apart is that Milo wasn't there to speak. He was there to incite the response he received at the cost of the City of Berkeley. There was no need for all the protests outside of the venue where he was supposed to speak. Having some people inside that audience stand up and tell him to go fuck himself would have been sufficient protest without costing the city anything.

 

[jdhu]

I agree 100%. The part where this falls apart is that Milo wasn't there to speak. He was there to incite the response he received at the cost of the City of Berkeley. There was no need for all the protests outside of the venue where he was supposed to speak. Having some people inside that audience stand up and tell him to go fuck himself would have been sufficient protest without costing the city anything.

But, the point is trying to disrupt. I am all for (non-violent) protest. Would we feel the same if some sanctimonious people disrupted the FSF, including from within?

Some people would assert the FSF, being openly in public, is an attempt to garner attention, etc., and isn't merely about enjoying fetishes.

 

[Climber]

But, the point is trying to disrupt. I am all for (non-violent) protest. Would we feel the same if some sanctimonious people disrupted the FSF, including from within?

Some people would assert the FSF, being openly in public, is an attempt to garner attention, etc., and isn't merely about enjoying fetishes.

Does anybody know if there are warnings about the graphic nature of some of the activities that occur are posted around the boundaries of the fair, so that parents and people who might be offended by it are well warned before confronting the realities of it first hand?

 

[CocoLoco]

But, the point is trying to disrupt. I am all for (non-violent) protest. Would we feel the same if some sanctimonious people disrupted the FSF, including from within?

Some people would assert the FSF, being openly in public, is an attempt to garner attention, etc., and isn't merely about enjoying fetishes.

You are skipping over an important point you brought up. The Faire isn't intended to be an affront to normies. Actions like Milo coming to UCB or the other extremist events of the past years were specifically created and intended to incite violent protest. That is an important distinction.

 

[jdhu]

You are skipping over an important point you brought up. The Faire isn't intended to be an affront to normies. Actions like Milo coming to UCB or the other extremist events of the past years were specifically created and intended to incite violent protest. That is an important distinction.

But, this is your view, only? You are guessing at the intent of FSF, and Milo's. Perhaps you are right, perhaps not.

And, even if you are correct, I still think trolling behavior has to be protected, in terms of 1st Amendment and the right to be free from violence.

 

[CocoLoco]

But, this is your view, only? You are guessing at the intent of FSF, and Milo's. Perhaps you are right, perhaps not.

And, even if you are correct, I still think trolling behavior has to be protected, in terms of 1st Amendment and the right to be free from violence.

A view I share:
Frontline: Documenting Hate

Absolutely, trolling behavior has to be allowed. When millions of dollars are spent to maintain order? Who should bear the cost? The persons/entities producing the trollish behavior or society at large for the response?

P.S. There is no protection from violence. There is only criminal prosecution for committing violence. 1A freedom of speech does not protect anyone from being violated by others for their speech. It only means the government isn't allowed to commit it.

 

[Climber]

But, this is your view, only? You are guessing at the intent of FSF, and Milo's. Perhaps you are right, perhaps not.

And, even if you are correct, I still think trolling behavior has to be protected, in terms of 1st Amendment and the right to be free from violence.

Didn't violence come from both sides?

One side claimed that they were 'protecting his 1st amendment right (to troll)' while the other was reacting (stupidly).

Both sides were in the wrong, but one side claimed patriotic authority in it's actions while the other claimed moral authority in it's actions.

 

[jdhu]

A view I share:
Frontline: Documenting Hate

Absolutely, trolling behavior has to be allowed. When millions of dollars are spent to maintain order? Who should bear the cost? The persons/entities producing the trollish behavior or society at large for the response?

P.S. There is no protection from violence. There is only criminal prosecution for committing violence. 1A freedom of speech does not protect anyone from being violated by others for their speech. It only means the government isn't allowed to commit it.

I'll disagree, although it seems like semantics. If attacking someone physically is outlawed, the would-be victim has the right to not be physically attacked. I'll guess headline statutes (and certainly legislative bills) come out and say it.

The cost issue, I have no answer. I suppose it should be the government's responsibility to ensure order, and forcing a group to pay it's own protection costs obviously has a chilling effect (talk about inequality).

Does the link go into Milo's intentions? Otherwise, what's the purpose?

 

[jdhu]

Didn't violence come from both sides?

One side claimed that they were 'protecting his 1st amendment right (to troll)' while the other was reacting (stupidly).

Both sides were in the wrong, but one side claimed patriotic authority in it's actions while the other claimed moral authority in it's actions.

No doubt. My point is about the violent (meaning physical) acts themselves, and not who did what.

 

[CocoLoco]

The link goes into the intentions of all the free speech movements/events over the past few years. It goes into the groups who funded the events and the intent behind them.

 

[jdhu]

The link goes into the intentions of all the free speech movements/events over the past few years. It goes into the groups who funded the events and the intent behind them.

OK. Since we seem to agree trolling behavior must be protected, seems somewhat moot, but I will try to be patient.

 

[CocoLoco]

I'll disagree, although it seems like semantics. If attacking someone physically is outlawed, the would-be victim has the right to not be physically attacked. I'll guess headline statutes (and certainly legislative bills) come out and say it.

The cost issue, I have no answer. I suppose it should be the government's responsibility to ensure order, and forcing a group to pay it's own protection costs obviously has a chilling effect (talk about inequality).

Does the link go into Milo's intentions? Otherwise, what's the purpose?

I'd suggest this is looking at it from the opposite direction in a criminal sense. If a attacking someone physically is outlawed then doing so is grounds for removal of rights by the state. It is only tangential to the victim's rights. The victim's rights only come into play civilly.

 

[jdhu]

I'd suggest this is looking at it from the opposite direction in a criminal sense. If a attacking someone physically is outlawed then doing so is grounds for removal of rights by the state. It is only tangential to the victim's rights. The victim's rights only come into play civilly.

CA Constitution, Article 1 Section 1:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[justanotherg20]

For those who posted about it, I thought they did close off the area?

Didn't go to gawk at the spectacle this year, but I kinda remember some sort of checkpoint where they were taking donations and backpack inspections last time around.

 

[CocoLoco]

CA Constitution, Article 1 Section 1:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Violating laws that define the boundaries of this article can have two consequences: 1) criminal prosecution because the person failed to adhere to the law restricting actions that crossed them; and 2) civil prosecution to reverse any loss of property incurred by the victim/society.

Criminal prosecution isn't a protection of the defined rights. It is to determine if the agreed upon boundaries have been crossed and allows the state to remove rights if they have. The boundaries only protect individuals tangentially. They are intended to define acceptable behavior within our society and that acceptable behavior ensures the rights defined.

 

[jdhu]

Violating laws that define the boundaries of this article can have two consequences: 1) criminal prosecution because the person failed to adhere to the law restricting actions that crossed them; and 2) civil prosecution to reverse any loss of property incurred by the victim/society.

Criminal prosecution isn't a protection of the defined rights. It is to determine if the agreed upon boundaries have been crossed and allows the state to remove rights if they have. The boundaries only protect individuals tangentially. They are intended to define acceptable behavior within our society and that acceptable behavior ensures the rights defined.

You are losing me. In particular, why is the emboldened true? Even if true, what is the point and relevance?

What would it take for you to agree there's a right to be free of violence? What sort of statutory language?