For All Of Trump's Complaints About Social Media 'Censorship', The White House Itself Moderates Content Similarly To Social Media Sites
Oakland, California On Its Way To Becoming The Third US City To Ban Facial Recognition Tech

LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion

Free Speech

from the 'let's-prove-their-point!'-the-Major-Crimes-Division-exclaimed dept

Mon, Jul 22nd 2019 12:04pm -

Maybe the LAPD doesn’t have the experience its counter-coastal counterpart has in inflicting damage to rights and liberties, but it’s trying, dammit! The NYPD’s brushes with the Constitution are numerous and perpetual. The LAPD may have spent more time working on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments during its Rampart peak, but now it’s rolling up on the First Amendment like a repurposed MRAP on a small town lawn.

The Los Angeles Police Department ordered a confidential informant to monitor and record meetings held by a political group that staged protests against President Trump in 2017, a move that has drawn concern and consternation from civil rights advocates.

On four separate occasions in October 2017, the informant entered Echo Park United Methodist Church with a hidden recorder and captured audio of meetings held by the Los Angeles chapter of Refuse Fascism, a group that has organized a number of large-scale demonstrations against the Trump administration in major U.S. cities, according to court records reviewed by The Times.

Perhaps no entities show more concern about opposition to fascism than law enforcement agencies, for some weird and completely inexplicable reason. Somehow, this investigation involved the Major Crimes Division, which felt the need to get involved because of all the major criminal activity that is the hallmark of protest groups.

What sort of major crimes are we talking about? Well, let’s just check the record…

Police reports and transcripts documenting the informant’s activities became public as part of an ongoing case against several members of Refuse Fascism who were charged with criminal trespassing…

I see the term “major” has been redefined by the Major Crimes Division to encompass anything it might feel the urge to investigate. Supposedly, this incursion on the First Amendment was the result of an “abundance of caution” following reports of violent clashes between anti-fascists and alt-right demonstrators at other protests/rallies.

Again, the LAPD seems to not understand the meaning of the words it uses, because an “abundance of caution” should have resulted in steering clear of First Amendment-protected activities, rather than infiltrating them.

Also, an abundance of caution might have resulted in the LAPD checking out the other set of theoretical combatants, but the Los Angeles Times reports a police official said no attempt was made to infiltrate any far-right protest groups.

“Major.” “Caution.” “Consistency.” These words are beyond the department’s comprehension. And here’s the kicker: the Major Crimes Division did not send its informant in until after the demonstration was already over, the freeway had already been blocked, and criminal trespassing charges had already been brought. This wasn’t an investigation. It was a fishing expedition targeting people who don’t like fascists that used the First Amendment as a doormat. Calls to the LAPD’s Irony Division were not returned.

I guess we’re all supposed to feel better about this now that the LAPD has promised to investigate itself over its First Amendment-infringing infiltration. But it seems a department that routinely struggles to use words properly and cannot steer clear of the Constitutional shoreline shouldn’t be trusted to run a fax machine, much less an internal investigation.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

286 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
286 Comments
Ninja (profile) says:

“Also, an abundance of caution might have resulted in the LAPD checking out the other set of theoretical combatants, but the Los Angeles Times reports a police official said no attempt was made to infiltrate any far-right protest groups. ”

I was shocked when I realized this isn’t even remotely surprising for me. And I’m guessing a lot of folks here probably thought the same. Which speaks loudly about where most law enforcement stand these days.

David says:

Re: Re:

Look, I don’t know what the surprise is supposed to be about. Both fascists and antifascists seek to change the existing political system to something different, and guess which of the changes would promote the relevance of police departments and get them more funding, more personnel, and more impact?

This is a completely natural direction of resources and attention. So it does not warrant cries of disgust as much as working regulation and oversight.

The U.S. embraces capitalism as the philosophy based on the assumption that nothing motivates people as much as selfishness. Yet when they encounter selfishness not in their interest, they are all up in arms. You can cry "foul" all you want, but unless you get your lawmakers and representatives to work on this problem, this is what naturally will occur.

David says:

Re: Re: Re: "The U.S. embraces capitalism"

It does have the "pursuit of happiness" bit. Capitalism proper wasn’t really such a pervasive thing until industrialisation set it and put an entirely different weight to the accruement of money and its relation to the accruement of power.

After millennia of pushing the disreputable job of managing money to Jews kept at the mercy of their "Christian" regents (and often at the brink of pogroms), the balance of money and crumbling imperial power shifted and antisemitism flared up in basically all industrialised countries. The U.S. got off comparatively mild (though check out Henry Ford’s ramblings) since the Calvinists already propagated a link between commercial success and being in God’s grace, and before the mass exodus in the Nazi times, the U.S. was more a target for emigrating protestants of not-locally-loved denominations than for most other religions (though the railroads propspered with their own immigrant workers and cultures).

At any rate, capitalism is not in the Constitution as such because it wasn’t a thing of similar size and importance at the time the constitution was written. But the spirit of letting people pursue their own interests to the best of their abilities and with at most the necessary interference is definitely there.

R,ogs/ says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "The U.S. embraces capitalism"

Diid you miss the carrot first, tho?

The dog whistle came only after this blanket absolution of banksterish, culturally Jewish criminality/polity, expressed thus:

"the disreputable job of managing money to Jews kept at the mercy of their "Christian" regents"

Ahhhh, the poor, helpless, collectivist, George Sorosy, frequently billionairish and Zuckerbergesque Joos. Always victims-because the polity of othering others kills off LOOOOOTS of others, whose kin then pay it forwards with actual anti-semitism.

Keep in mind that the Jewish-christian world order PREEMPTIVELY slaughters pagans, animists, atheists and everyone else wholesale, and then, cries wolf and antishemitis when these get wise to the Stanley and Ollie routine.

And who can forget how many altRight/white opinion leaders are also Jewish? I mean, why waste time talking in circles about dog whistles, when the Jewish-christian confabulation/ world order is the real conversation?

Jesus spaketh thusly says:

Re: Re: Re:5 How many restraining orders you got against you?

Therapy? What do you recommend, genius?

Therapy, so that Sigmund Freud and the rest of the religious-tribalist infected can analyze me, as a reaction formation to Jewish-christian psychopathology, expressed through the DSM-5, which is heavily reliant upon pre-Nazi era/MHCHAOS era pseudo science, aka, labelling theory plus some Big Pharma dope?

Anyone who has lived through America needs some form of therapy. I personally prefer "not being in Jewish-christian infected environments," followed by week long binges on 7 dollar backrubs.

…but you need to stop hiding like a sniping coward, which is its own form of mental illness.

Or, maybe go kill yourself, which would be demonstrably good for the rest of non-Jewish-christian humanity.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Psychotherapy

Most twenty-first-century forms of psychotherapy are not based on the Freudian model. And no, the DSM-5 isn’t used to assess whether someone needs to be sent into a padded room, rather it comes down to a single question: Is the subject an immediate danger to himself or others? In other words, is he (she) imminently about to do something that will trigger responders and make a news cycle?

As for the DSM, yes, it has a long (dark) history and some prior models of what was or wasn’t crazy would be regarded pseudoscience now — as is the case for basic mechanics or chemistry. The history of science is notably (and proudly) laden with missteps and cascade failures and paradigm shifts where the old model was discarded for one that better predicts reality. And when that science involves people, it means a lot of people are abused and hurt.

I would argue that it’s generally a bad idea to get committed in the US, just as it’s a bad idea to end up in jail. The US regards both groups to have too much cross section, and there is a lot of guard-on-detainee abuse in all of our brigs. But that’s a specific problem that needs to be addressed on its own. It is not cause to condemn the whole field of psychology.

I might agree with you that much of the population in the United States could benefit from regular psychotherapy. We value the capacity to function under stress way more than we value actual mental health…or any health for that matter, and most people are unaware of their own deteriorating health while they try to sustain high-functionality for their job supervisors.

As for your suggestion to someone to KYS, Jesus spaketh thusly it shows a lack of awareness of the epidemic of suicide in the United States which is an order of magnitude larger than our gun violence problem, and it speaks poorly both of both your Christian values and your awareness of major matters in the psychiatric sector.

Maybe, Jesus spaketh thusly you should consider refraining commenting on internet forums, and in so doing, brighten the world a jot.

R,ogs/ says:

Re: Re: Re:5 How many yeast infections do you give your partner?

Interesting tool, those restraining orders that are widely used to subvert due process of law, fair trials, and insight into womens violence, directed at men, and children, in Judeo-christian, American households.

Martin Feibert examined that in the pre-DVIC era, and guess what? Yup….

Its a fancy tool of the banksters to get cash, property, and kids funneled into the DVIC systems, y overlooking womens violence, and gendering violence as male:

(.pdf warning)

http://newstripepolitics.com/feminism/fiebert-bibliography-of-partner-violence/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Homegrown Terrorists in 2018 Were Almost All Right-Wing

From 2009 through 2018, right-wing extremists accounted for 73 percent of such [domestic terror] killings, according to the ADL, compared with 23 percent for Islamists and 3 percent for left-wing extremists. In other words, most terrorist attacks in the United States, and most deaths from terrorist attacks, are caused by white extremists.

I’m sorry, try again?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps there is a difference of opinion about what constitutes terrorism.

Do not fell bad as the entire population of political members and their pundits have been unable to conquer this problem which seems to revolve about their lack of good communication skills.

If one labels violent acts as being from an individual acting alone it somehow shields same from being considered terroristic in nature, I’m not sure why this is but it sure seems to be the case.

Anyway – if you control the statistics you can say anything and not be wrong.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: This is vaguely related to Poe's law

Maybe because it’s the far-leftist groups doing 99% of the violence out there. The right is busy working.

When I see this comment as the first word I realize it’s not relevant as an explanation of the incident discussed in the article, rather an example of the collective mindset that was a factor in its fruition.

As a note for future propaganda, sweeping statistics like 99% tend to be implausible and will lead skeptics to fact-check. In fact most criminal violence in the US is domestic and apolitical, and even when we start narrowing it to just political violence, hate crime rates remain at an elevated level during the Trump era (about 168% of the Obama era rates), which means the Far-Left Liberation Army (FLLA!) would have to be doing a hundred times that.

This is not to say extreme stats are always false (Grand juries indict about 100.00% of non-law-enforcement suspects, and about 0.00 law enforcement suspects), but they are going to be commonly subject to scrutiny.

Agammamon says:

". . . which felt the need to get involved because of all the major criminal activity that is the hallmark of protest groups."

You mean like assaults with deadly weapons? Property damage? Rioting?

I’ve got nothing to say about this particular anti-fascist group – they may genuinely be anti-fascist and otherwise fairly peaceful – but let’s not pretend antifa isn’t a violent movement.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What’s the difference between matter and anti-matter?

Scientists tell us that any particle of matter and its anti-matter counterpart are exactly alike in every way, except for a few specific characteristics in which they are exactly alike except for being oriented in the polar opposite direction. And when the two meet, it results in a violent explosion.

What’s the difference between fascists and anti-fascists?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Well, we all know that one instance of a stereotype is indicative of all members of said stereotype, right? It then follows, using your logic, that all conservatives are violent because there have been multiple instances of violent behavior by so called conservatives – right? That is what you are saying.

Also, there never are any infiltrators who instigate violence are there?

Do you agree with those calling to outlaw protests? Id so, what color jackboots do you wear?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Far right violence has killed and injured and terrorized so many, but Ted Cruz isn’t sponsoring a resolution to call far right activists "domestic terrorists". They have literally murdered people from coast to coast, and celebrated and lionized the murderers. What have antifascists done? We have IDd planners of far right violence. We have punched some Nazis. We have deplatformed their celebrities to make it more difficult for them to recruit. The far right is a lethal, cancerous virus in the body of a society. Antifascists are part of the immune system. Ask yourself why any elected official is trying to suppress the social immune system and court the votes of violent fascists.

(Source)

“Antifa” is not an organization¹, but a political philosophy (antifascism). By labelling “Antifa” as a terrorist group, the government can label all antifascists as terrorists(-in-waiting) and justify infiltrating those groups, possibly with the intent to push people toward violent action². You have bigger problems than the Antifa boogeyman in your head if you see no issue with the police doing that bullshit.

¹ — Yes, there are groups that use “Antifa” in their names, but there is no one central “Antifa” organization.

² — See also: the FBI terrorism stings where the “terrorist” would have never come close to committing a terrorist act if not for the intervention of the FBI.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

By labelling “Antifa” as a terrorist group, the government can label all antifascists as terrorists

And when we had a left-leaning president, the government (via DHS) would routinely send out bulletins to local law enforcement that warned of ‘signs you might be dealing with a domestic terrorist or extremist’.

Included on the list were things like:

—Individuals who are unusually well-versed in the law, court decisions, and/or the Bill of Rights.

—Individuals who carry a copy of the Constitution on their person.

—Individual who insist on filming or recording encounters with law enforcement

—Individuals who do not trust the government or who advocate for a federal government with limited power.

—Individuals who belong to or advertise the NRA on their clothing and vehicles.

It’s not real fun when the shoe’s on the other foot now, is it?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Also...

It’s not a good sign when law enforcement categorizes people for extra suspicion because they are well-versed in the law or carry a copy of the Constitution of the United States.

For one, it indicates that these are uncommon traits which is indicative of a failing state of the people.

For another thing, it means it’s all too easy to be poorly versed in the law. Hamilton noted that this is a problem in Federalist #61

And given those, the police don’t serve the people but the administration and are a direct threat to the people.

But that has been a lengthy discussion with continuously accruing evidence right here on TechDirt for… over a decade now.

Agammamon says:

"And here’s the kicker: the Major Crimes Division did not send its informant in until after the demonstration was already over, the freeway had already been blocked, and criminal trespassing charges had already been brought. This wasn’t an investigation."

I might be misreading something here – after multiple crimes are committed, you have a problem with the police infiltrating a group associated with those criminals?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

With all the surveillance apparatus vacuuming up every little bit of data it is just too difficult to identity the perpetrators without violating a few laws of the land or maybe their surveillance is a bit lacking.
They were on a freeway in LA, where traffic is a huge problem so cameras were installed everywhere. I guess these cameras have suck.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Umm… because if you arrest someone without evidence, it doesn’t actually work, so you need to gather the evidence first?

But…

the freeway had already been blocked, and criminal trespassing charges had already been brought. This wasn’t an investigation.

So they brought charges of trespassing without evidence?

You’re not helping their argument.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re:

From the LA Times article:

The official also said investigators believed some members of Refuse Fascism had been involved in previous street violence in the Bay Area. The official did not name those members or provide evidence of that claim. Ultimately, the department determined Refuse Fascism did not pose a threat to the public, the official said.

Under the circumstances? Yeah, I see a couple of problems there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I might be misreading something here – after multiple crimes are committed, you have a problem with the police infiltrating a group associated with those criminals?

After all, it’s known that trespassing is a gateway crime to such capital offenses as jaywalking, double parking, and copyright infringement.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

false arrest (in their stalled cars)

IANAL, but I think that unless there’s something preventing you from leaving a car, that’s not unlawful confinement (it certainly wouldn’t be false arrest because it’s not a state actor).

and even cost the lives of people seeking emergency medical attention.

So could any protest that blocks any right-of-way. In either case, it’s an incredibly small risk. Do you think it’s so great a risk that it’s worth completely outlawing protesting?

Hugo S Cunningham (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Do you think it’s so great a risk that it’s worth completely outlawing protesting

Ridiculous strawman. There is a well-established law of "parade permits," allowing protesters to protest and police to plan traffic around them.

Police and the public don’t make a big issue of occasional unplanned blockages of local streets. Interstate highways are a much more serious matter, however.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/15/protesters-block-traffic-southeast-express-northbound/G3aLvpDWRixI2I6SVyaErM/story.html

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Parade permits

I’m pretty sure parade and protest permits (which are often rejected to activism groups that run against the provincial grain) are in the same category as first amendment zones on campuses.

More specifically, in a state in which political speech is supposed to be free, it’s rendering it not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Parade permits

Yeah, content-based denials of parade-type permits are 1A violations; that sort of permitting is really a ministerial traffic-engineering function, anyway, that shouldn’t even be subject to political-level review. Basically, "is your temporary traffic control consistent with the road you’re occupying?" is the only question that really needs to be asked, no different than if it was a utility occupying the road instead of a protest group.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Bias

TBF, in this instance, the LA Times article says this:

The LAPD did not conduct similar operations involving right-wing groups in the same time frame, according to the official who spoke with The Times, though experts have said there is little organized far-right activity within the department’s jurisdiction.

That could be a valid reason not to have similar investigations of right-wing groups.

Speaking generally, though, I’m with you; I’m pretty concerned with the approach toward white supremacist violence from both law enforcement and the press.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Bias

…Or shoot up a synagogue, because he thinks that Jews are behind the caravans at the US-Mexico border. Or shoot up a yoga studio, because he hates interracial relationships. Or shoot up a school after opining that that all Jews should die. Or…

There’s a lot of blood on the far right’s hands for them to be considered "not big enough to warrant real concern." Especially when there’s so much insistence on investigating left-wing activists, when all of the stories about "left-wing violence" tend to involve milkshakes.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

No, they call themselves "America". That’s why they state that people not loving racism in their government and working for political change by working as political representatives "hate America" and "should go back where they came from" (Ohio, for example).

They may be Trump voters but they don’t call themselves anything as narrowly categorized as that.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The U.S. government does not consider the Ku Klux Klan to be a domestic terrorist organization despite its century-plus history of hate-driven violence and murder that ended thousands of lives and terrorized minorities of all kinds.

If the Klan isn’t considered a terrorist group despite its documented history of fatal terroristic violence, for what reason should antifascists receive the same label?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

They are not carrying out terrorist campaigns today, and know that aggressive actions while hooded (masked) will attract hostile LE attention.

Yeah! KKK leaders haven’t shot any black people since 2018! And they haven’t put on white hoods and burned crosses since the long-off days of 2017.

Truly their time as a terrorist organization is over.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Bias

Antifa seeks freedom and equality for all

If by "all," you mean "everyone who agrees with them," then yes. Which, again, makes them exactly the same as the fascists, who seek freedom and equality (though they tend to prefer the term "liberty" these days) for everyone who is on their side, at the expense of everyone else.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Antifa

Having actually read the principles of Antifaschistische Aktion, (commonly abbreviated in the German style — like Jasta or Nazi — to Antifa). Sects of antifa regard any emergence of fascism as an existential threat. Fascism is (according to antifa) such a great threat to humanity that the cause of fighting it supersedes all arguments regarding human rights.

So yes, according to antifa, Nazi-talk is a punchable offense. Yes. This contradicts laws of nations that value free political speech.

Antifa is an extreme response to the holocaust, and yes, they believe that it is better if would-be fascists are dead then allowed to potentially revive fascism. Antifa may be extreme enough to prefer the fall of civilization or even human extinction rather than fascism rise again. The monstrosity of fascism is so great that it warrants the risk of becoming monsters themselves to fight it.

This is also the only principle of antifa. Antifa avoids opinions regarding what should exist in the place of fascism, only that it cannot be fascism. It also commands action to defend enemies of fascism and all entities who also fight fascism, and to mobilize whenever fascism and its advocates materialize.

Curiously, I’m not sure why they aren’t mobilizing to liberate US detention centers which are nexi of fascism in action.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Antifa

Because it’s easier to cause trouble than to solve problems. Antifa is not a serious organisation (mostly because they’re not organised and unified due to their being anarchists). So basically all they ever do is march and occasionally hit people (sometimes the "wrong" people) and all to be seen to be opposing fascism as opposed to actually effectively opposing fascism. It’s just an excuse to be violent.

Having engaged with them on Twitter I can confirm this is correct and true and that they’re basically violent idiots who couldn’t organise a booze-up in a brewery. Violence is not okay.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 I'm not able to dismiss Antifa yet.

It turns out Nazis are great for challenging deontological ethics. Generally I think lying is wrong but fuck if I’m going to out the gays in my basement to Nazi SS. I’d even resist when interrogated.

Similarly the presence of Nazis raises a point of when it is appropriate to engage in violence. Wendy do you think Von Clausewitz was wrong to try to assassinate Hitler in July of 1944? Unlike many of the other attempts, Von Clausewitz was part of a team determined to take over governance of Germany and surrender to the Allies. But Von Clausewitz himself got involved, himself, because he couldn’t tolerate the genocide policies of Hitler’s regime (even though Von Clausewitz was a Thulian and a German supremacist, himself).

Consider also all peaceful protests against Hitler and his policies had long been routed out, arrested and executed. Also, every hour was thousands more human beings processed through the death camp engines. Wendy, do you think Von Clausewitz should have not resorted to violence to bring the war, and the Holocaust to a quicker end in 1944?

Right now, it pains me that all efforts to liberate the detention camps are bogged down in legality. We’re looking for a way to litigate the release of detainees or at least their proper treatment. But they’re suffering today Their health is deteriorating as I write and more are going to die because no-one is doing anything of substance to stop it. Of the action that is taken, none of it considers actually freeing the detainees or providing just reparations for what we’re doing to them.

Hence, I think liberating the US detention camps would be an acceptable use of force, if the means were available to seize each camp, neutralize its staff and security and free the detainees. I have little doubt they would be better off in the wilds of the United States than trapped in their current deteriorating conditions.

Regarding antifa, granted, they are not that organized or armed, and their resistance to pro-fascist protests is sloppy. But that is not to say those organizations shouldn’t be resisted. They have been more than nuisances throughout the 20th century, and have done far more violence than antifa, usually against the most marginalized and most vulnerable of the public.

Also, antifa came to existence not as an organized defense front, but due to the failure of the international community to develop an institutionalized defense against fascists. Our institutions are corrupted. We’re in a neo-feudal era where the people once again have no voice, and the public buys into the scheme through fascist propaganda. So descriptively antifa is the natural end result of the international failure to stop the Holocaust before it did considerable damage, and the international community giving too few fucks about genocide. Perhaps the best way to stop antifa violence is to create a coalition of international powers committed to actually confronting and overwhelming large powers (corporations and nations) that cease regarding human beings as human beings. (Such as the US Private Prison sector.)

And then, in current circumstances antifa has a point: If the US Republican Party (now totally a fascist, white nationalist institution) continues to stay in power (which they likely will given the degree they’ve corrupted the US election system), Fascism is, in delaying our response to the global ecology crisis, an existential threat to the human species.

Are we so repulsed by violence today that we’d rather let them kill us all than fight back? Especially given they really are going to kill us all?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 False equivalencies half off aisle 2

Oh so what you’re saying is there’s a substantial difference there? How strange, It’s almost like you’re completely full of shit and are desperately grasping at straws to try demonise one side while giving the other a free pass.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Bias

Well, the LAPD seems so have a jurisdictional limit of…LA. LA, as a major metropolitan center in California, is known for its heavily left leaning population.

So that the LAPD feels it has "little organized far-right activity within the department’s jurisdiction" has nothing to do with the overall far-right activity, and much more to do with demographic makeup.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Even if those organizations aren’t “big enough”, they still stay connected to other such organizations who share those beliefs. They still remain primed for the kind of violence that antifascists rarely (if ever) carry out. And they still have sympathetic ears within police forces across the country¹.

For what reason do police and other government agents hesitate to label White nationalist groups as “domestic terrorists”? And for what reason do those same authorities jump at the chance to slap that label on antifascists in general? Antifascists are provably less violent than White nationalist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. What, then, drives that disparity in treatment?

It’s almost as if some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses. Imagine that.

¹ — To wit.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Bias

In the context of LAPD jurisdiction? Perhaps, though I’d be interested in further context (who are the experts the article refers to, and what criteria do they base their claim on?).

That’s not the same thing as saying there aren’t any far-right groups that pose a threat anywhere in the country. It’s not even saying that there aren’t any in the LA area. The white supremacist Rise Above Movement operates in nearby Orange County, and a number of its members have been arrested and charged (though only after coverage by ProPublica).

Janet Reitman had a pretty thorough piece last November concerning law enforcement’s difficulties in combating white supremacist terrorism: U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It. She does note that in many cases, violent white supremacists are the proverbial lone wolves who may perhaps read propaganda by the likes of Richard Spencer but not actually belong to any white supremacist organizations. However, she also discusses groups like the Proud Boys, RAM, the Traditionalist Worker Party, and Identity Evropa, whose members have committed violence but which do not seem to have been subject to the same level of police scrutiny that the LAPD gave Refuse Fascism.

Anonymous Coward says:

The biggest crimes committed were by the police

The irony is that the police have committed the biggest crimes by far and are left to investigate their own activities. I’m certain that no bias will interfere with a just and fair conclusion. I’m also certain that letting the fox run the hen house will result in dead hens due to no fault of the fox, according to internal fox investigators.

David says:

Re: The biggest crimes committed were by the police

The irony is that the police have committed the biggest crimes by far and are left to investigate their own activities. I’m certain that no bias will interfere with a just and fair conclusion. I’m also certain that letting the fox run the hen house will result in dead hens due to no fault of the fox, according to internal fox investigators.

As reported by Fox news.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re: Bad Press

How about listing some that you consider most important

Oh wait – you are serious, right?

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/blog/34-arrests-44-physical-attacks-and-more-chilling-numbers-us-press-freedom-trackers-first-year/

https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/war-on-photography/

So Antiifa – 1, Cops – A few more.

It’s Ok – it’s just a few "Bad Apples." Antifa is holding an internal review of the violence and will publish their report later this year.

Hugo S Cunningham (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Bad Press

Interesting articles; thank you. Since the advent of Trump, there has been a surge in casual right-wing aggression against the press, comparable to what Antifa is accused of in the Andy Ngo incident. Some of the police actions, however, are understandable during disorders (riots), when it is not always clear who is a problem and who is not..

David says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Bad Press

Interesting articles; thank you. Since the advent of Trump, there has been a surge in casual right-wing aggression against the press, comparable to what Antifa is accused of in the Andy Ngo incident. Some of the police actions, however, are understandable during disorders (riots), when it is not always clear who is a problem and who is not..

I know it’s harder to prove a negative, but the police could still try to clarify the situation by not being part of the problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Bad Press

"No, Anti-Fa repeatedly gets caught throwing bricks and concrete into crowds of people. That’s attempted murder. That makes them terrorists. When you try to kill people. Sorry. They are terrorists. You lose. Thank you for playing."

Interesting … those who actually terrorize and murder people are not terrorists but those who threaten with bricks and concrete are terrorists. Would it possible for you to expound upon this in a manner that others may be able to parse? Because on the surface, it seems to be self contradictory.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Bad Press

By "concrete," do you, by any chance, mean "milkshakes?" Because, fun fact, milkshakes have enough sugar in them to prevent concrete from setting.

I’d also be interested to know whether you’d judge all of the right-wing shootings, where people have actually been killed (Charlottesville, Pittsburgh, Parkland, Tallahassee, just to name a few) by the same standard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Proactive Self-Defense

"Perhaps no entities show more concern about opposition to fascism than law enforcement agencies, for some weird and completely inexplicable reason."

Neither "weird" nor "inexplicable. Antifa groups might turn their focus on the police, if allowed to flourish and succeed against non-police fascism.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.

A lot of conservatives summoned the beast of ten-thousand lies in the White House. And they seem to give no fucks about the havoc he wreaks. I can’t find anyone willing to say Trump and Miller’s detention policy has gone to far.

I’m still waiting for some self-identified conservative somewhere, a pundit, a representative or even a freaking neighbor to proclaim something (anything) to the effect of:

No. This is wrong. Locking civilians (including kids) in cages is wrong. Depriving civilians (including kids) of adequate food, water and hygiene is wrong. Separating children from their families is wrong. Separating families without means to reunite them again is extra wrong. Letting civilians (including kids) continue to be abused by the officers charged with caring for them is dehumanizing and against every ideal that defines the United States of America.

Regardless of my prior positions regarding immigration, regarding border security and regarding undocumented persons, I never would have endorsed a policy or candidate that led the United States to the current US detention center catastrophe. Had I known I would have voted differently — even against my own party — in order to prevent this current state of affairs.

Curiously, I haven’t heard this once. Not once.

Mostly, I’m hearing Send her back! Send her back! Send her back! regarding Representative Ilhan Omar. Mostly I’m hearing complaints that calling them concentration camps is inappropriate.

It doesn’t matter what we call them. They’re fucked up is what they are. Every last one of them should be shut down and all the people released, preferably with supplies. Absolutely with amnesty and an apology from the United States.

You cannot condone the state (which is a core of conservatism) while it is declaring some people illegal and treating them as if they are not even human. That is fascist. The United States is currently acting like a fascist regime.

If you don’t like the word fascist because of its connotations, how about: ruthless, cruel, inhumane, tyrannical, contrary to equality or rule of law. The United States is currently all these things.

The nation has crossed a line. It is impossible to be in favor of the United States as it is currently administrated and retain moral integrity. If you’re pro-state you have to admit to condoning a grotesque fucked-up policy that fails to recognize human beings for what they are.

And if you don’t, if you challenge the Trump Administraion immigration policies, then at least as far as immigration is concerned, you’re not conservative.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.

Ohai, Uriel.

Conservative here.

http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2018/06/will-trumpism-destroy-america.html

http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2018/06/kids-in-cages-what-has-happened-to.html

All opinions are my own, I’m not interested in talking points.

http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/search/label/Conservatism

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: I may not have been careful enough.

I was trying to specify American conservatives, Wendy. though I may have generalized too much. If you were on this side of the pond I’d be asking, what is there that remains to conserve?

Curiously, even the aspects of Christianity you hold dear (peacemongering, fighting hunger and poverty) are only preserved by those (smaller) churches on the left side of the spectrum. The big evangelist megachurches are right with the RCC fixate mostly on oppressing women and suppressing gays, also what a great guy Trump is and how their parishioners should keep voting for the man until we can canonize him.

Granted, the far right in the US has many allies in the UK but a wide range of objectors and downright enemies as well. That may be a good thing: we’ll need you to lead the Allies this time.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I may not have been careful enough.

Thank you, Uriel.

I believe in liberal democracy and traditional Judeo-Christian values. I don’t like cruelty and am communitarian at heart. Basically, all the values I grew up with in our small farming community.

There are some people on the Right in the States who would agree with you, Rick Wilson and David French being two of them. While I often disagree with French (whose views on healthcare and abortion are horrible, to say the least), both are vocal about it being wrong to mistreat the migrants and refugees who come over the border and would have them treated more humanely.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.

I don’t seem to remember any progressives protesting Obama’s treatment of illegal immigrants either.

Did he treat them as badly as Trump is doing? In any case just because you don’t remember it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

It doesn’t say who was protesting but sure doesn’t sound like conservatives:

https://hackinglawpractice.com/blog/immigration-advocates-arrested-outside-white-house-for-protesting-obama-immigration-policies/

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/4/immigration-advocatespressureobamaondeportations.html

https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/politics/latino-obama-protests/index.html

And so on. Of course you could have found any of these sources if you were really interested, which makes me think you’re just living up to your screen name.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.

I’m still waiting for some self-identified conservative somewhere to proclaim something (anything) to the effect of: "No. This is wrong. Locking civilians (including kids) in cages is wrong."

Were you waiting for Democrats to say the same thing when Obama doing just that at the border? Or was your concern suddenly birthed shiny and new the moment Trump took the reins?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Conservatives and libertarians doth protest too

Funny that. Because it’s been my experience that only racists get all bent out of shape the second they thinks someone calls them a racist. Then they go off on a tangental rant about what they think the other person was saying in a ridiculous and super defensive way. Kinda like you just did.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Conservatives and libertarians doth protest

Because it’s been my experience that only racists get all bent out of shape the second they thinks someone calls them a racist.

Then you’ve had some bizarre experiences and have very little knowledge of basic human nature.

A person who is not racist would indeed ‘get bent out of shape’ if accused of being one, especially in today’s climate where mere accusations can cost people their livelihoods.

Oh, and

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Non-racists called racist

Really? I try to take into consideration what I did or said that was racist. Recently I was accused of racism in an old essay on the Yellow Peril in mystery fiction and considered if anything I wrote was, in fact racist. I was talking about racism, but I still don’t think what I said was racist.

But I didn’t get offended.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Non-racists called racist

And, generally speaking, there are two kinds of people, who can be distinguished by how they react to such an accusation.

The first kind of person gets angry and immediately insists that the accusation is false, because they’re not racist, and how dare you try to destroy their reputation by making this about race. Their reaction is anger.

The second kind of person considers what they’ve just said, and tries to figure out how it might be construed as racist, asking for clarification if they don’t get it. Their reaction is confusion.

And, ten times out of ten, the people falling into the first group are going to be the ones who hold racist views, because they’re unable and/or unwilling to critically examine their own beliefs.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Non-racists called racist

The second kind of person considers what they’ve just said, and tries to figure out how it might be construed as racist, asking for clarification if they don’t get it.

And since what we’re talking about is someone who is falsely accused of racism, there will be no clarification that’s satisfactory because no actual racism exists, at which point the person falsely accused will indeed ‘get bent out of shape’ (as it was described above) if the accusations persist.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 False accusations of racism

So this is the opposite of racists are in the eye of the beholder

So when you show blatant disregard for people in detention camps that’s not racist because you don’t mean it to be racist? Is that how it works?

It still sucks that you regard other people as less than human however you decide for yourself that it is acceptable to do so.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The US enforcing its own borders

The U.S. is the only country in the world that’s not supposed to enforce its own borders and if it does, it’s racist, and fascist

If the US — or any country — resorts to crimes against humanity in order to enforce border policy then you better motherfucking believe it’s fascist.

If you don’t like fascist I can give you a dozen other descriptors. How about Unamerican?

btr1701 in Wannsee justifications for the final solution were based on budgetary concerns and the inability to expatriate Jews to other countries. How does none of this make sense to you? Are you that heartless?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: To the man with a hammer...

"Since real fascists are hard to find on the Pacific Coast"

Do you read anything other than right wing dogma?

Nah, just talked to people who lived under (and survived) actual real fascism, and they shake their heads sadly at the shit people like Antifa label ‘fascist’, which more and more has come to equal ‘anyone who isn’t a progressive leftist’.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "Actual real fascism"

The implication of which is some kinds of fascism threats being faced in the present day are not real.

Is this something like real concentration camps? Is it just a device by which to dismiss the actual real violence committed by less-than-real fascists?

Protip for the future: Get specific. Rather than saying…

I just talked to people who lived under actual real fascism

tell the whole experience like,

I talked to relatives of families massacred in Lidice, and they think US Antifa are cowards… for not bringing arms (rifles, bombs and flamethrowers) to face the neo-nazi menace as they cloak themselves in German iconery of genocide and preach hate and racial supremacy. Even mere shadows of fascism must be put down lest it rise again. Laws and propriety will not matter once the fascists twist laws to their own end, so why should they matter before they seize power?

Antifa comes from those who hold a grudge and a valid concern that next time the Allies may not win.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 "Actual real fascism"

There were many, many types of camps. Very few were like Auschwitz.

And yet if you’re being remotely honest, you’d admit that Auschwitz is exactly the image you want to conjure in people’s minds when you and people like Occasional-Cortex use the term ‘concentration camp’ so that you can gin-up as much outrage as possible.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "Occasional-Cortex"

You know when you signal so blatantly that you don’t have respect for someone, it clarifies you can’t be trusted to think rationally about them or their positions.

Also, when you use phrases such as people like [representative Ocasio-Cortez], it highlights you don’t actually interface with people, but just assume that an example or two (say from memes or dubious news articles) defines an entire sector. (Then it’s inconsistent to take offense when the rest of us get outraged at the law enforcement institutions for officers doing bad-cop things.)

Or you can just seal the deal by calling us all libtard SJW cucks. Rolls right off the tongue, yes?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "Occasional-Cortex"

You know when you signal so blatantly that you don’t have respect for someone, it clarifies you can’t be trusted to think rationally about them or their positions.

LOL! So commenters on this site routinely and daily use made up derogatory nicknames for Trump and other conservatives without any criticism from you or anyone else, but the moment someone does it to a ‘progressive’ it’s somehow beyond the pale and evidence of irrationality.

You’re a cartoon. A hypocritical cartoon.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "Actual real fascism"

I am being completely honest when I said that bro. I expect most people commenting here to know basic history. Something you seem unwilling or unable to grasp. And while we are being honest it’s doing your talking points zero favours to call a United States Congressperson by a childish nickname. It is quite telling about your mentality though. And if you want the complete truth. Just stop bro. I’m tired of humiliating you and your basic bitch trailer trash rhetoric.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "Actual real fascism"

And while we are being honest it’s doing your talking points zero favours to call a United States Congressperson by a childish nickname.

I’ll await your scathing rebuke of the next person here that calls Trump a childish nickname, something that happens on this site with notable regularity.

I mean, if you’re not a hypocrite or anything, dood…

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Keeping me honest

Ah, btr1701 it turns out you can’t keep yourself honest, let alone serve as a check on others. Our peerless leader seems to have the same problem when what the President of the United States has make a statement representing his office and his nation that runs in conflict with his own beliefs. Sooner or later his true colors unfold like a peacock tail.

This tells me you’d be the sort that would sign up for Heydrich’s Einsatzgruppen thinking you’re doing good service for the motherland…and then would puke yourself unconscious in the face of the human corpses. Don’t worry, even Heydrich couldn’t stomach it either. You’ll get accustomed.

But it’s become clear to me you think some of us are human and worthy of regard and rights, and others of us are not and can be dismissed, dispensed with, or left to suffer. That’s totally a hallmark of fascism, but I’ll let you call it whatever you want. I get it.

R,ogs/ says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Keeping me honest

You know way to much about Nazis….

But, prolly, not a lot about how the KKK is/was an FBI tool, or how the JDL-ADL bombers terrorized Americans.

Or, how the famous "free speech”cases taken up by the ACLU were actually defending Jewish Nazis, and other terrorists like Frank Collin~nee~Cohen.

Or, how the FBI/Anti Defamation League sponsor/instigate nearly all forms of violent pseudo protest, as we see with antifa, aka Kommunity Klubs and Kovens (K4) of today.

JDL and KKK Terrorism: Sponsored By ADL And Supervised By The FBI:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1GRIbpmmz0

America hasnt had actual, non-infiltrated/controlled or real dissent since the IWW.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Keeping me honest

America [hasn’t] had actual, non-infiltrated/controlled or real dissent since the [WWI]

The FBI in its pursuit of Soviet spies in the US was inserting agents within their designated gangs and sects since WWII, yes. They still have a tendency to insert themselves into new religious movements assuming they’re dangerous cults. Very few of them are, which means a lot of agents salaries are spent investigating benign groups.

But the KKK existed (in three separate movements) before the Pinkertons became the FBI. It’s doubtless some staff of the FBI were KKK, themselves when they were fighting booze runners.

Yes, the ACLU received a lot of support in the 60s from the KGB who regarded it as a state-subversive organization US culture, but this isn’t to say the ACLU didn’t address real problems or do good work. Strange bedfellows and all that. In fact the KGB contributed a lot to the non-profits that are still seeking to shed sunlight on government corruption to this day. This is expected in an open state. It’s also the origin of a lot of the animosity between state law-enforcement agencies and watchdog non-profits. Old grudges.

You know way to much about Nazis

And I don’t see how one can know way too much about Nazis. It’s like saying one knows way too much about the Challenger explosion or the 9/11 attacks or the Titanic disaster: the way we avoid failures in the future is by analyzing the fuck out of the ones in the past and engineering new stuff to not fail when the old stuff did.

And given our steady lockstep march towards a new holocaust, it’s useful to let the naysayers know what to expect as they find themselves dehumanizing others. How they resign themselves to help pack the trains, and how they were find themselves totally shocked when the police come to arrest them and send them to be processed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: To the man with a hammer...

"just talked to people who lived under (and survived) actual real fascism"

Funny that as I was just reading a story about survivors of the death camps and they were saying that it is indeed fascism, those are concentration camps and they are a bit concerned about it.

But hey, I suppose one could find someone to say just about anything these days huh.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

1st Amendment?

What does any of this have to do with the first amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Protest as a right falls squarely under the first amendment. It’s political expression, assembly and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

Whenever this is restricted by the government, or infiltrated by law enforcement in order to fish for wrongdoing, it’s an encroachment of the first amendment.

Granted, if we had a functional justice system that could ascertain fair consistent legal limits of the first amendment, we might be able to put (few, restricted) limits on these rights. But we don’t.

The police is not treating all activism organizations equally which demonstrates the failure of the legal system in this regard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Yeah, the key word there is "peaceably", a notion that is antithetical (antifetical?) to a SJW extremist domestic terror organization. There is no right, First Amendment or otherwise, to riot or to run "demonstrations" and "protests" that assault people or commit property crimes.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Heather Hayer, may she rest in peace, would have had me ask you (were she still alive to do so) whether not not these "non-rights" you enumerated include ploughing a car into a crowd in order to hurt or kill people.

One of your heroes did that, AC, and he couldn’t possibly be considered left wing or Antifa.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Or are we going for the daily doubledown

The only thing in the world that made her mad was people like you, who defend monsters. Not the monsters themselves mind you. Because she understood monsters don’t act alone and are near powerless by themselves.

I eagerly await your apology and $500 donation to the https://www.adl.org/

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Actual Concentration Camps

Oh my. Actual concentration camps is the same as real concentration camps, btr1701. It’s like arguing over true Scotsmen, but way more repugnant.

You’re dismissing the suffering of detainees of the United States (malnutrition, infection, trauma, hard sleeping, abuse by detention officers) because… it’s not concentration-campy enough for you? Do I have that correct? You’re using the processing of German prisoners in the holocaust to justify dismissal of human suffering in twenty-first-century United States effected by pernicious policy because it’s not macho enough.

I bet when Rumsfeld was arguing from the White House that waterboarding isn’t really torture you were right there nodding along with him. You better start practicing your snappy salute and your lockstep marching. You’re in like Eichmann.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Actual Concentration Camps

You’re dismissing the suffering of detainees of the United States (malnutrition, infection, trauma, hard sleeping, abuse by detention officers)

Don’t forget dying. 24 immigrants have died in government custody since Trump took office. Oh but that’s way less than the 5+ million in the holocaust so I guess it’s OK. Wait is "not as bad as the Holocaust" the standard the US is going for now?

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Actual Concentration Camps

More than twice that number died during Obama’s first two years in office.

What point are you trying to make? That it’s OK that it’s happening now because it used to be worse? That nobody should criticize the current administration because people are dying at a somewhat lower rate now? That you don’t actually care about the deaths and just want to score political points? I can’t tell.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Actual Concentration Camps

What point are you trying to make? That it’s okay that it’s happening now because it used to be worse?

Nope. That the people who are so upset about it now are disingenuous and insincere because it used to be worse and they said nothing, or at least didn’t make such a public spectacle of it, gnashing their teeth and beating their breasts about ‘concentration camps’ and whatnot.

That nobody should criticize the current administration because people are dying at a somewhat lower rate now?

Nope. That their criticism can be both valid and hypocritical if they didn’t levy the same or more criticism at the administration in power when the problem was even worse. Or, more likely, that their current criticism is motivated more by political advantage than any real humanitarian concern. Like Rahm Emanuel famously said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Whataboutism

Heh. btr1701 I got your new replies in an email and three in succession were an example of whataboutism or Tu quoque, never actually addressing your disrespect for those on the left, or — what I’m much more interested in — your outright dismissal of the humanitarian crisis currently faced by the United States in its US detention facilities.

(Incidentally you keep imagining Obama was much more popular here on TechDirt than he actually was. The rise of the private prison sector, the police state, the surveillance state and ICE’ authority overreach including serving as corporate mercenaries all happened on his watch despite promises of hope and change. Your repeated accusations of partisanship are on false, unchecked pretenses.)

As you’ve already demonstrated insincerity and inconsistency in your own ideology in this forum your arguments of whataboutism — if valid — would be susceptable to whataboutism.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Actual Concentration Camps

Everything you just said was a bunch of assumptions. There absolutely was criticism and protests of Obama’s treatment of immigrants, and you don’t actually know who was doing it. And everything you’re saying comes across as an attempt to deflect criticism of the current administration for reasons that are to me unclear. You haven’t actually offered any defense of it, because it’s indefensible, but you’re doing everything you can think of to make people look somewhere else. Because you think Trump is great? I suspect not. Because you really hate the Democrats? You consider yourself conservative so feel a need to defend anything conservatives are doing? Something else? I’m not sure.

/S,gor says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Actual Broken Fingernails

….and the ADL/SPLC/Hillel/JFeds, etc. and that form of white supremacy all too silent about the US Prison Industrial Complex (full of US citizens) and “the blacks”who they dont give an actual shit about, other than to dangle them from invisible metaphorical political ropes when one of their Chosen!®,like Obama feigns CHANGE!

I am calling spades on the whole distraction of immigrant “concentration camps,” and hoping “the blacks” figure it out.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

at least Van Spronsen had noble intent – shutting down an American concentration camp and freeing the prisoners therein

He was trying to burn the place down, FFS. They killed him as he was trying to ignite a large propane tank that would have exploded part of the building. The victims would have included the people inside that you’re so worried about.

Noble intent, my ass.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Stalin and Mao

Stalin believed in persuing soviet communism (note lower case) even less than President Trump believes in democracy (or checks and balances, or the wide distribution of power).

Dunno about Mao enough to comment, but dictators by definition are on the far right (pro-administration) not the left.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

SJW extremist domestic terror organization

Two things.

  1. “SJW” is a weak-ass insult. It is also a phrase so vague that you can define it to mean whatever you want for the sake of an argument. Use a stronger, more concrete term next time.
  2. If you think antifascists are “extreme domestic terror[ists]”, look into the history of the Ku Klux Klan. They have committed far more violence, and with far greater lethality, than can ever be attributed to antifascists.
btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Fascism” describes a specific political ideology and the sociopolitical philosophies therein.

Which doesn’t even remotely apply to the merely conservative speakers at college campuses and other places where Antifa tries to ‘deplatform’ them. Hence my comment that it’s become a vague term that is defined to mean whatever they want in the moment, just as you described SJW.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: SJW

When this term is used in derision, it not only implies the speaker is against social justice (id est social equality), but also implies that the speaker has no respect for those who want a truly equal society by assuming people who pursue such ends are insincere in their efforts.

It also implies a lack of respect for the dialog itself when you can’t help yourself but show contempt for the other side.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Social Justice vs. Justice

Related to the difference between injustice and social injustice. Where injustice includes personal conflicts of parity, social injustice regards trends of injustice affecting subsets of the population in different proportion.

In a socially just world, injustice would happen proportionately or so rarely that it’s impossible to determine disproportions due to an inadequate amount of data to create a large enough sampling.

/S,gor says:

Re: Re: Re:2 SJW/communist manifesto

Um…not even a nice try:
… those who want a truly equal society

Idealists? Or, others who read the Communist Manifesto?

I have lived in countries where those who preach your doctrine bulldoze ten thousand km at a time, displacing the residents, because the "land belongs to all the people.”

Then, they drive home in a new Mercedes every year, because those who push this idealism in the US, also fund these communist party Mercedes dealerships.

And guess who NEVER lives an "equal” life?

crickets

Zof (profile) says:

So, Let's Do This Math

Anti-Fa is a terrorist organization. The clue being the attempted murder. They routinely throw bricks into crowds of people, attempting to commit murder. This is established.

Refuse Fascism has been linked to Anti-Fa repeatedly.

I’d be angry if the police were NOT doing their jobs, and in the very least monitoring known murderers and terrorists.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: So, Let's Do This Math

Antifa is exactly as much an "organization" as, say, "pro-life" is. That is, it’s a philosophy that a bunch of people espouse, and some organizations working towards that philosophy have used the name of the philosophy as part of their organization’s names.

If "antifa," and anyone who labels themselves as such, is a "terrorist organization" for the fact that some people using that identifier have been beating up other people while protesting, then "pro-life" is also certainly a "terrorist organization" for the abortion clinics they’ve bombed.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Antifascism is a political philosophy, not an organized group. A fascist government will always want to slap the “terrorist” label on everyone who self-identifies as an antifascist. That makes curtailing the civil rights of antifascists a much easier act to justify.

For what reason could the U.S. government want to label antifascists as terrorists regardless of whether they’re violent, yet refuse to slap that label on provably violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan despite their history of (sometimes lethal) political violence?

TRX (profile) says:

Hm?

When were the last times the "fascists" got together, rioted, blocked roads, beat up old people and reporters, or wore masks and used bike locks on anyone they didn’t like? Any time in the 21st century will do.

Can you even name any fascist groups in America? Okay, you might know about the American Nazi Party, which occasionally issues press releases and sells pamphlets. They’re probably the largest outfit, with perhaps a few hundred members nationwide. Without resorting to a search engine, can you name another? Hint for cheaters: most of the ones you’ll find listed by the SPLC have literally dozens of members, or have been defunct since the 20th century.

The only people out there who are a problem are… the pantifa.

So, if you’re a PD trying to keep tabs on potential rioters and civil unrest, where are you going to put your limited resources?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

When were the last times the "fascists" got together, rioted, blocked roads, beat up old people and reporters, or wore masks and used bike locks on anyone they didn’t like? Any time in the 21st century will do.

I don’t know when the last time was, but 2017 in Charlottesville comes to mind.

Can you even name any fascist groups in America? Okay, you might know about the American Nazi Party, which occasionally issues press releases and sells pamphlets. They’re probably the largest outfit, with perhaps a few hundred members nationwide. Without resorting to a search engine, can you name another?

Far-right, authoritarian, nationalist groups? The Ku Klux Klan, Patriot Prayer, and Proud Boys are the three that first come to mind without resorting to Google, and I’m pretty sure that they each have more than "dozens of members."

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

"When were the last times the "fascists" got together, rioted, blocked roads, beat up old people and reporters, or wore masks and used bike locks on anyone they didn’t like? Any time in the 21st century will do."

When was the last time you read news from a source other than Fox, WorldNewsDaily, Inforwars, Breitbart, Stormfront ……. you get the idea.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Proud boys. I win.

By the way what are a pantifa? Are they the group that hates sweat pants? God bless those mad bastards.

Pro tip cowboy. Don’t ask questions with answers already given in this thread. And wipe the spittle off your keyboard as you type. It will help in future avoid making humiliating mistakes like misspelling the group you raving about like a lunatic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The fuck is a pantifa?!?

June 29 3019

I love how Trump has emboldened you mouthbreathing shitstains to pop up from whatever chan you’ve been festering under and try your stupid bullshit in the real world. Where you are promptly humiliated and run away like a bitch. The best part is, in the end you actively hurt the cause you are trying to promote.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Somehow, this investigation involved the Major Crimes Division, which felt the need to get involved because of all the major criminal activity that is the hallmark of protest groups.

Major Crimes was involved because that’s the intelligence arm of the LAPD. The name of the division is historical (much like the Secret Service, which isn’t actually secret but whose names comes from the fact that it was originally staffed in the 1800s by members of the Union Army that spied on Confederates behind enemy lines). Actual "major crimes" in LAPD are investigated by the Robbery-Homicide Division. And yes, they should probably consider renaming Major Crimes, if, for no other reason, than to give the Cushings of the world one less thing to snarkily bitch about.

K`Tetch (profile) says:

Look, the reason why they’re not infiltrating those groups is something like this

"Hey dick, what are you doing here?"
"Oh hey Tom, nothing nothing"
"Hey, wait a minute, didn’t you just trasfer out of patrol into Major Crimes? I think my Sergeant mentioned it when we were on patrol yesterday…"

And from Adrian Schoolchild, to Donna Jane Watts, back to Serpico, we know how cops feel about informing on cops.

That’s not to say all cops are in these far right groups, but some are. And the problem is that with police Omerta, they can’t risk informing on any, because they’re always buddies with 5 other cops, and then it goes on.

And yes, we know White supremacists and other far-right groups mix, and it doesn’t matter if it’s cops joining far right groups, or far right group members joining the cops. It doesn’t matter either way it’s an internal investigation, and that’s bad for the ‘branding’.

Digitari says:

Antifa

antifa was started by the communists in 1931, they were a propaganda group in the begining, they were the cause if Hitlers rise to power in the mid 30’s.

You "know it alls" should really look into the origins, and how they helped Hitler rise to power.

If not for "antifa" there may have not been aq hitler at all.

funny huh?

but of course, none of you want to hear that do you.

look up barvarin communists 1931

if you want the truth.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Antifa

Or are you talking about these guys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

The Bavarian Soviet Republic ended in 1919 so I don’t see how that could have anything to do with Hitler’s rise. In 1919 he was pretty much a nobody. Antifaschistische Aktion was, as the name indicates, opposed to fascism and in case you didn’t know, the Nazis were fascists. So they definitely didn’t help Hitler. Kind of sounds like you’re totally full of crap.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Antifa

Maybe referring to this bit?

Antifaschistische Aktion did not only oppose the Nazis, but also the social democrats whom they regarded as one of their main enemies in the early 1930s. KPD and Antifaschistische Aktion adhered to the "social fascism" theory proclaimed by Joseph Stalin, according to which social democrats were the "moderate wing of fascism," and regarded as even more dangerous than fascists who were open about being fascists. Occasionally the "anti-fascist" Communist Party cooperated with the Nazis in attacking the social democrats, and both sought to destroy the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic. In 1931 the KPD had united with the Nazis, whom they referred to as "working people’s comrades," in an unsuccessful attempt to bring down the social democrat state government of Prussia by means of a plebiscite.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

For All Of Trump's Complaints About Social Media 'Censorship', The White House Itself Moderates Content Similarly To Social Media Sites
Oakland, California On Its Way To Becoming The Third US City To Ban Facial Recognition Tech
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...