Neo-Nazis Swarm Home of New England Governor
Neo-Nazis Swarm Home of New England Governor
Massachusetts filed civil rights charges against the hate group. NSC-131 demonstrators unfurled a banner reading: “We’re not going anywhere.”
Comment on Headline: I don't know if swarm is the right word, I think that implies they entered the home? I guess a group of insects is a swarm whether it's inside or out. They had their Nazi party in the street, and the governor's home is protected at all times by state police.
...................................
Dozens of Neo-Nazis demonstrated outside the home of Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) on Saturday night, in an intimidating display of hate. Members of the group NSC-131 — which seeks to create a white-only ethnostate in New England — marched Saturday night through the Boston suburb of Arlington, uniformed in khakis, black jackets, face masks, and baseball caps.
The NSC-131 members moved under cover of darkness, co-opting the progressive activist chant, “Whose streets? Our streets!” The neo-Nazis then lined up on the sidewalk across the street from the Healey’s home, which was protected by state troopers. The group’s members lit red traffic flares, and held these aloft with stiff arm Hitler salutes. They unfurled a banner reading: “WE’RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE.”
The action by NSC-131 was an in-the-streets response to civil rights charges brought against the group by the state late last year. A 26-page complaint was lodged by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (D) in December. Campbell denounced the group’s efforts to “target and terrorize people across Massachusetts and interfere with their rights,” and insisted the state of Massachusetts is dedicated to “holding this neo-Nazi group and its leaders accountable.”
That legal complaint hits NSC-131 for actions that “unlawfully target and disrupt LGBTQ+ events,” including drag queen story hours; “unlawfully target immigrants based on race and national origin,” including by trespassing at hotels where asylum seekers have been offered temporary housing; “unlawfully attack members of the public,” with frequent brawling at NSC-131 marches; and for numerous efforts to “disrupt public peace and safety.”
...............................
Maura Healy was an aggressive lawyer for a long time before she was governor. I'm sure the AG is no exception.
Interesting that they think they are the ones not going anywhere in the state where America drew its first breath of liberty. Fuck Nazis.
You're viewing a single thread.
The group’s members lit red traffic flares, and held these aloft with stiff arm Hitler salutes.
I always wonder why doing the Nazi-Salute is legal in the USA. I mean, so many Soldiers gave their Lives to put an End to fascism and this paired with the pride Americans have for their Soldiers is just baffling.
To extend that answer a bit, the Constitution have a strong element of distrust in the government as an institution, which in historical context makes sense given that it arose from a revolt against a literal monarchy.
It's basically a fear of allowing the government to define what kind of speech is so objectionable that it can be suppressed with state force. Because if the government does have that power, what's stopping a future Trump administration from defining, expressing support for trans children, as supremely offensive to the natural order and thus criminal?
Sure, you can hope that you have strong courts that would block that, but ultimately, the institutional American view is that it's generally safer for the government to not have the power at all rather than simply trust that it won't be abused.
I get that in terms of speech but this more an action or not? Like you can say all you want but doing suggestive gestures are something else, or is this like an attachment to speech itself? I don't really get where the line is between saying things and doing things ._.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that actions and expression can be a form of speech. Art, for instance, can be considered a form of free speech.
The law generally draws the line when that speech begins to harm others directly. There’s the old “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example. If a reasonable person would know their speech could directly lead to others being harmed, the courts may decide to restrict it. For the above example, a reasonable person could expect someone to end up getting trampled in a panicked evacuation, and therefore could be held responsible for that person’s injuries/death if they used their right to free speech to falsely incite that panic. This is why threats of violence are illegal, and aren’t covered by free speech.
But the issue is that the Nazi salute isn’t directly harmful by itself. Yes, it carries a lot of historical and social significance. But it’s not a direct threat of violence in and of itself; It becomes an implicit threat when coupled with other factors, (like being in an angry torch-wielding mob,) but by itself it’s harmless, (at least as far as the courts determine harm. Remember that they don’t factor hurt feelings into that harm.) So the courts have historically allowed it to be covered as free speech. Banning the salute would be like banning the word “punch”. Sure it may be illegal to tell someone “I’m going to punch your fucking lights out” because that’s a threat of violence. But the individual word is just a word.
But it’s also important to remember that the freedom of speech only protects people from government infringement. It doesn’t protect you from social consequences. A common argument when a Nazi gets called out is “well it’s my freedom of speech.” Sure, but that doesn’t stop people from ostracizing you for it. It doesn’t stop an employer from firing you for it. It doesn’t stop your friends and family from disowning you for it. It doesn’t stop random passersby from hating you for it. If the only argument for your speech is “the government can’t legally stop me” then you probably don’t have a good justification for it.
Actions = speech too in the U.S. as long as those actions aren't physical assault.
Huh. Now I'm even more curious. Is there nothing like the criminal offense "Insult"? So like you can sue someone if he insults you?
Generally not. If someone makes a specific false allegation against you and you can prove it, you can sue for libel or slander, but the burden of proof is quite high.
There is harassment, if someone is continuously following you around to hurl insults at you and generally make your life miserable, but again, the burden of proof is high and it's less the insult itself that's the legal issue and more the disruption to your ability to live your normal life. Making specific threats or calling for violence against a specific person can also be criminal.
But yeah, generally speaking, insults are protected speech. Expressing admiration for Hitler is constitutionally protected. Saying that Jews deserve to die is also probably going to be protected, but context will become relevant. If you continuously do it outside of a synagogue, there may be criminal liability. Saying that some specific Jew walking by should be killed to a crowd of people with the ability and interest to do it is absolutely illegal, full stop. LIkewise, calling someone a braindead waste of oxygen is constitutionally protected, while calling them a criminal pedophile is absolutely illegal (unless you can actually prove that it's true).
Generally not. If someone makes a specific false allegation against you and you can prove it, you can sue for libel or slander, but the burden of proof is quite high.
You also need to show that harm resulted from it. And not just hurt feelings, it's mostly about economic/financial harm, though social harm can play into it.
Only if it is slander or libel. If the insult is something like, "you're an asshole," no. If it is "you're a pedophile," potentially.
There is a big difference between criminal law and civil (tort) law. "Suing" takes place in civil court and is not a matter of actions being criminal offenses, violations, or "illegal," and tort cases have different burdens of proof.
You can sue someone for just about anything, hence the concept of "frivolous lawsuits." That wouldn't need have anything to do with a criminal offense, of which, no, "insult" is generally not.
Slander or libel would fit that, but it needs to be false and the perpetrator needs to have done it with the intent to harm you.
If someone insults you but you haven’t been harmed, there’s nothing to sue for. You need to be damaged in some tangible way; Feelings don’t count. If you lose your job because someone lied about you, you could sue for lost wages. But if you haven’t been harmed, there are no damages.
If you fucked a goat, someone goes around town calling you a goatfucker, and causes you to lose your job as a result, it’s perfectly legal. It only becomes a crime when it’s false and you have been harmed.
The American constitution forbids the Government from banning it. It has in it one of the strongest protections for free speech and among the most liberal definitions of "speech" in the world.
and among the most liberal definitions of “speech” in the world.
I'd say the most liberal definition considering our supreme court declared that money is speech.