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.
They didn’t “Swarm” anything, they threatened the lady governor en masse under the cover of darkness like the pussies they usually are, maintaining that thin veneer of legality so that the governor can’t go after them.
Now the Nazi punks are acting like they’re the KKK to a sitting governor, time to start curb stomping some Nazis kids, before they come to curbstomp the rest of us.
Nazis should be on everyone’s fuck-up-on-sight list.
That’s how we roll here.
A bunch of them showed up at her home. Swarm is a perfectly apt word to use.
My only problem with it is I imagine swarm like how hornets enter a bees nest or how conservatives try to break down barricades at the US Capitol. When we’re this close to civil war, we don’t want to use words that imply the fighting has already started.
Nazi punks
🤣
Technically, losing the thin veneer at previous events is why they got brought to court to being with. The group frequently instigated violence and unlawfully harassed and attacked based on protected classes and the Governor and AG are handling the 26 page complaint, which is why they decided to gather outside of her home.
We are being entirely too polite to these assholes. Our grandfathers would be ashamed of us.
My grandfather voted for brexit because he hates immigrants so idk
Family can be a real crapshoot.
Lol. The UK sent millions of poor immigrants to the US for like 300 years. Getting a few back shouldn’t be that big of a deal.
How often did he visit Spain on holiday prior to Brexit?
Actually not much, he prefers Portugal 😭😭😭
With 40% of the population supporting these rancid fascist fucknuggets there’s no meaningful way to deplatform them and they know it. They need fear beaten back into them.
And yet if you, as a leftist, suggest that we should be arming ourselves like our enemies who have openly said they want to kill us, you’ll be called a redneck gun nut, Russian troll, and/or fake leftist.
I have not seen this argument you claim. If a liberal wants to own a gun, they can own a gun. Genuine leftists, particularly of the seize-the-means-of-production sort, are also not exactly unfamiliar with violence.
Perhaps you are hanging out with … trolls?
Or perhaps actually calling for violence, which would get your comments removed, on here at least?
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
― Karl MarxYou know, I’ve never done that or even suggested that people on the left should not have guns, yet I remember people here (and I’m pretty sure you were one of them) telling me that’s what I wanted because they decided that something like me saying “I think there should be heavier regulations” or “maybe guns should be kept out of the hands of people who have been institutionalized for mental illness” means I want everyone’s gun to be seized by Trump personally.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !liberalgunowners@lemmy.world
Where?
Those folks have clearly never met a real redneck, let alone a socialist one. I dream of the day when there are more privately owned functional artillery pieces in the US than people. Imagine if unions could just blast away Pinkertons, Scabs, and Police with high explosive shells.
Also corporations and police shouldnt even be allowed to own guns, fuck you fight me!
Fuck our grandparents, they tilled the soil that grew this hate. It’s our children we should think of… how would they feel about what we’re doing about this problem.
My grandfather shot Nazis and my grandmother smuggled draftees across the border to Canada. Maybe you’re just from poor stock.
Unfortunately though they are outliers. Not common or the rule. A far too large part of that generation despite fighting fascists overseas, voted almost exclusively for fascists locally. For decades. Pre 1964 it was honestly a rough choice. I’ll give them that much. You had the fascistic Republicans chock full of antisemites and Hitler sympathizers. Who in the 1930s had gotten caught, forming a fascist plot to depose FDR. End the new deal, and turn America into a business friendly fascist dictatorship. Or the extremely bigoted Dixiecrats to choose between.
Post 1964 it quickly became more and more unjustifiable to vote for Republicans. But they still did. In droves even. Between Nixon and Reagan the breaks came off. With the folksy fascist winning in an electoral landslide. Doing so much deep lasting damage that we’re still assessing the damage to this day. Terrifying Democrats for 2 generations now and cowing them into nothing more than complicit, milquetoast enablers.
Don’t get me wrong, I vote against Republicans in every election. Which generally means voting for Democrats. Who often don’t even run at the state and local level here for many offices. But America, for the last 100 years has absolutely let fascism openly fester.
Removed by mod
touch grass
Removed by mod
You think white supremacists shot Nazis…? I mean, yeah, I guess the most famous Nazi ended up shooting himself, that might count. Kinda.
Or do you think only white supremacists care about history? Really curious about this line of reasoning.
As a side note, falling into despair is exactly what the fascists want of you. It keeps you out of their way, which helps them.
. Maybe you’re just from poor stock.
consistency please
Ah, interesting. Values handed down through cultures and families are a thing though, given Nazi shooting is a behavior and set of values, that was how I interpreted it.
Incidentally, your font size does not exactly have the impact you might think, we’re not all a bunch of teens here.
They have a point. Calling your progenitors poor stock if they enabled racists is valid. What are you going to do about it other than sling mud at others?
deleted by creator
I mean, he was driving the car most of the time from my understanding. So, while I don’t accept the premise of your question; yes, he was proud of her.
Removed by mod
I don’t think you’re in a position to know how much or little I am invested in this exchange.
Thank you for showing us who you are. Blocked.
As proud as any tRump supporter right?
The phrasing “New England governor” is a little strange. Like, we know where Massachusetts is, how about some specificity.
Ya reads a bit goofy. Like referring to the Whitehouse as home of Earth President.
I reckon it’s a combination of clickbait and an old-school J-school aversion to putting long words in headlines (though you’d typically see “Mass. Governor” in that case).
Members of the group NSC-131 — which seeks to create a white-only ethnostate in New England
These dumb fucks don’t understand that everyone else has to go along with them.
You’re not going to have your precious “white-only ethnostate” when the vast majority of white people in New England have no desire for such a thing.
Maybe, but could we give them a small plot of land or island? Put a few walls around it, maybe a moat, you know to protect them.
I’m sure we can find some barren as fuck plot to put them on.
The military probably has a couple old munitions testing grounds they could do without.
That would give them some resources.
That would give them cancer.
I like how they went with “New England Governor” so you’d have to click on the article to find out exactly WHICH governor from New England. Like the world’s most mundane clickbait lol
Also, swarm does not imply they entered her home. Swarm means “to surround”.
New England is one state, right?
Yeah, agreed. These clickbaity titles aren’t just sensationalist anymore, they’re flat wrong.
New England is one state, right?
The NFL apparently thinks so.
Not every NFL team represents a state.
You must be fun at parties.
Nazi scum. Fuck nazis.
So brave
So edgy
The neo-Nazi group has, nonetheless, attempted to make inroads with the MAGA crowd by coopting the issues animating the GOP base, declaring that “it is Nazism … to oppose Drag Queen Story Hour and Critical Race Theory.”
I mean… feels weird to agree on something.
We need to make it legal for citizens to shoot Nazis on site.
Or are we just going to let the police give them escorts everywhere they go and wait until they put the rest of us in death camps?
Oh no, President Trump has decreed that the LGBT cult are child abusing Nazis, and thus that anyone putting out LGBT propaganda in the presence of children can be shot on sight.
Due process is good, actually. Or at the least, certainly better than the alternative.
deleted by creator
Remember kids: the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi
It is perfectly legal to punch a Nazi for being a Nazi.
Well, it’s not legal to punch a Nazi just for being a Nazi. However, it is always moral to punch a Nazi for being a Nazi. Just know that if you choose to do the moral thing, the nazis with badges will likely arrest you for it.
What I’m saying is that if you’re going to be arrested anyways, you might as well make it worth it and get in more than just one punch.
If we’re discussing optimal punches to punishment ratio then you have to stop once they’re on the ground and definitely don’t kick them, because that would upgrade the charges to Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
If you really want to get away with punching Nazis then these Nazis are known to brawl at marches and events, so just instigate a bit without making physical contact and they’ll be the first to initiate touch, then you can turn them black and blue and red for you. Because self defence warrants a hell of a lot.
Punching nazis is a moral good and every black eye on a nazi face makes a child somewhere smile.
NSC-131 leaders posted video of the encounter outside the governor’s home on Telegram, a social network favored by many extremists, along with a message declaring that the point of the protest was “to show the world that lawfare will not intimidate New England Nationalists,” as well as to whine about what the hate group terms a “migrant invasion.”
Lawfare ?
Are they comparing laws to warfare ?
The rule of law is absolute. They know this. Their dream is to attack laws that uphold rights by posing the laws as a form of weapon used against them, whereas what they really want to do is change the laws to take away rights.
So to them, giving rights to brown, black, Jewish, Muslim and LGBTQ+ people is tantamount to warfare against them - because only white, heteronormative Christians should have rights in their eyes.
Ethno-nationalism 101. Attack the laws, to take away the rights, to allow atrocities under the law - also known as FUCKING NAZIS.
Well they compare their “suffering and persecution” to that of the holocaust victims of ww2, so yes. Yes they are.
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.
Why do they wear masks?
Because Covid, of course. Not that all Fascist are too afraid to do stunts like this without proper disguise. No sir. Just Covid. /s
I thought New England dudes fancied themselves as ‘tough guys’
It’s almost like most people don’t like them so they don’t want to be identified, isn’t it?
Ahhhh, so… cowardice
Yep. Same reason the KKK wears hoods.
deleted by creator
every militant group wears masks. it’s not cowardice, it’s just smart. it might be the only smart thing these folks have ever done, so at least give them the credit.
Big Daddy : Damn! I can’t see fuckin’ shit outta this thing.
Unnamed Baghead : We ready or what?
Big Daddy : Naw, hold on, I’m fuckin’ with my eye holes. [rips bag]
Big Daddy : Oh. Oh, shit. [takes off bag]
Big Daddy : Ah, I just made it worse.
Unnamed Baghead : Who made this goddamn shit?
Other Unnamed Baghead : Willard’s wife.
Willard : Well, make your own goddamn mask!
Big Daddy : Look. Nobody’s sayin’ they don’t appreciate what Jenny did.
Unnamed Baghead : Well, if all I had to do was cut a hole in a bag, I coulda cut it better than this!
Other Unnamed Baghead : What about you, Robert? Can you see?
Robert : Not too good. I mean, if I don’t move my head I can see you pretty good, more or less. But when I start ridin’, the bag’s movin’ all over, and I - I’m ridin’ blind.
Bag Head #2 : [rips bag] Shit. I just made mine worse. Anybody bring any extra bags?
Unnamed Baghead : No! Nobody brought an extra bag!
We should be curb-stomping these nazi shitcunts. They need to be made to cower in fear.
Why in the fuck would they put New England Governor instead of - ah fuck to get you to click huh
This system sucks
Deploy the National Guard, its treason no?
At this point it seems like mostly theatrics, but Massachusetts does not fuck around with civil rights. I guess they thought they were in Alabama or something.
