Neo-Nazis march in Nashville, leave after being challenged - eviltoast

The group left in a U-Haul box truck that was driven out of the county, police said, indicating the demonstrators were outsiders.

A small group of neo-Nazis marched in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, on Saturday, drawing a few vocal opponents and ultimately leaving following a “challenge,” police said.

The demonstrators, all men, wore red, long-sleeve T-shirts and black pants, and some carried black Nazi flags, according to verified social media video from the scene.

“Neo-Nazi demonstrators … carried flags with swastikas, walked around the Capitol and parts of downtown Saturday afternoon,” Nashville police said in a statement.

No arrests were reported, and the group left in a U-Haul box truck that ultimately exited greater Nashville, police said, indicating the demonstrators may have been from out of town.

“Some persons on Broadway challenged the group, most of whom wore face coverings,” the department said. “The group headed to a U-Haul box truck, got in, and departed Davidson County.”

    • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The system is working as intended, it was always since its inception a tool of oppression and control.

      The fact that they are not in jail atm is an indicator of solidarity between fascists and police.

    • 7u5k3n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      9 months ago

      Man you know… Thats the thing… I support their right to march and voice their opinion. Is it a shit opinion? Yes. Does middle Tennessee have a Nazi problem? Yes.

      But I don’t want the government to stop them from marching. Because if they can’t march… Then the groups I support and agree with can’t either.

      It sucks. But it’s how it should be. :/

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        69
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        the American government and many more literally went to war with the nazis once, it’s okay. It’s okay to say “the Nazis must not have a voice”, and giving the nazis a voice, and a platform, is not how it should be.

        if you don’t stop it now, it will get worse.

        • mellowheat@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I don’t think people recognize how much and how strong of an opposition is required to stop the problem in that way. Pre-WW2 germans didn’t just sit on their asses while nazis took over. They fought against it at every stage they could. They fought with politics, demonstrations, strikes and violence. But they lost.

          I think our current weakness is that for several decades, ridiculing nazis was the absolutely correct way to fight against them. It worked. They had no leverage beyond comedy. It seems that somehow that doesn’t work anymore.

          • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            They fought against it at every stage they could.

            Lol no they didn’t, the common german wholeheartedly embraced nazi ideology early on as their national identity was damaged and their economy brittle af.

            SOUND FAMILIAR?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s the slippery slope problem. I agree in general with everything you said, but struggle with figuring out a way to define that problem that isn’t open to abuse by determined bad actors. Imagine for instance that we already had such a law on the books when Trump was in office and consider what he might have been able to do with it.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            31
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            It really isn’t. many countries have dealt with this. Consider Germany’s outright outlawing of Nazi symbolism and rhetoric entirely.

            the slippery slope, if anything, is allowing the Nazis to be open and free Nazis inside your own country.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            You are promoting a slippery slope fallacy.

            Punishing murderers is not a slippery slope to punishing someone for saying mean words.

            Denying nazis the right to March when their entire ideology is based on racial superiority and hatred is not a slippery slope to denying marches for positive things like equality. Hell, there is already a history of positive protests being squashed, so why would we ever waste out breath defending nazis when instead we should promote the ability for positive messages and focus on only denying it when the message is actually harmful.

            • orclev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m not promoting anything, I’m just bringing up the very real threat that the GOP represent when provided with anything even vaguely related to restrictions on rights. I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t ban Nazis, in fact I very explicitly said I agreed with that, I’m just saying it’s not a simple problem. Any such law would need to be very carefully crafted to make absolutely certain it couldn’t be twisted into a weapon to target a group other than Nazis.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Laws can be pretty specific. Consider, if you will, a law against Nazis. It can’t really be abused in any way because it’s only targeting Nazis. It’s the same reason why murder is illegal but handshakes aren’t.

            • orclev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              The abuse is really simple, they just redefine Nazi to mean something else. Suddenly they’re arresting BLM protesters because they’ve declared BLM to be a Nazi organization. I’ve already had literal arguments with people claiming that BLM are Nazi supporters, as mind bogglingly stupid as that sounds.

              It’s probably not impossible to craft the law in such a way that it isn’t able to be weaponized, but the trick would also be in leaving it flexible enough that it isn’t easily bypassed. A German style ban on Nazi imagery would probably be a good start but as we’ve seen in Germany that doesn’t actually stop the ideology, it just removes the “brand” which isn’t nothing, but falls a little short of the goal.

              • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                9 months ago

                We should be enforcing current restrictions on “fighting words”, which are insults that incite violence. Right now calling someone a racial slur is protected speech, or at least not illegal. Even if the point of that speech is to incite violence, courts have not interpreted that as the fault of the speaker.

                This is the original idea:

                The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

                In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[1] It held that “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”

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

                Here’s a more modern revision:

                In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Virginia v. Black (2003), the Court held that cross burning is not ‘fighting words’ without intent to intimidate.

                Like what?

                • orclev@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It’s an interesting idea. I think I’d be fine if they just redefined fighting words as slurs. It seems like slurs would pretty easily meet the definition of fighting words without bringing in some of the more problematic cases like calling police fascists.

              • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s where the specificity comes in. Like you said, the imagery bans etc. I’m not sure the ideology will be easy to get rid of but we can at least implement some common sense laws to help curb it. In Australia we had some nazi rallies and we made it illegal to do the nazi salute or display nazi symbols. We’re a bit backward and racist most of the time, but I’m glad we draw the line at literal nazis.

          • ElleChaise@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            Reverse the order and the same can be said. Free speech has been abused to allow bad actors to rally for the death of people they don’t approve of. By your own logic, this is enough reason to support the issue.

      • ElleChaise@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        9 months ago

        Many people have said the same, and many people have died. Please take the words of this comment section into your mind and give it a second thought. Nazis can’t share the same privilege to “speak freely” when they only conduct hate speech to rally others to harm people. That’s regulated in a million ways; basically obscenity laws only exist because we don’t want Nazis to.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Everyone deserves a voice unless their message is one of hatred and in support of violent oppression. That is the line, and nazis are on the wrong side of the line.

      • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you value freedom of expression, that doesn’t mean you need to extend that to people who fundamentally oppose it. To maximize freedom of expression, you can’t tolerate the people who would outright destroy it.

        It’s also a slippery slope argument. We can just crack down on Nazis. And as for the government cracking down on other groups… they already do that. We see crackdowns on plenty of other demonstrations, with more repression and violence. Tolerating Nazis isn’t helping the good guys, because people in power don’t care about applying the rules evenly. Besides, even if we took the slippery slope seriously, then we have to consider what happens when we just let literal Nazis go about their business.

        • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Slippery slope argument is not a real counter argument. You support positive change and resist negative change on a case by case basis. If you want to argue about balance of power between branches of government that is fine but it’s separate from the conservative slippery slope means we can’t have nice thing argument.

      • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        No.

        Fuck nazis

        This isn’t a ‘matter of opinion’.

        There is NO middle ground between genocide and peace. And their ideals ALWAYS lead to that.

        The only good nazi is a dead nazi, the fact our country gives them freedom to speak proves how far we have slipped down the fascist ramp.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nazis are a blight on society, any time you give them a finger they take the whole arm, tattoo it full of swastikas and feed it to their ravenous dogs.

        You don’t need to be tolerant to the intolerant. They are the ones who broke the social contract by ascribing themselves to an ideology that is literally about genociding any group that doesn’t conform to their view.

        The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. No exceptions.

        • S_204@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That last line got me banned from Reddit at one point LoL.

            • S_204@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              That’s a hilarious way to find out who in it was using Reddit.

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Actually yes.

        Because absolute Freedom of Speech is absolutely stupid.

        No country should allow you cry fire at a crowded event without consequences because of free speech.

        No country should allow you to lie in court without consequences because of free speech.

        No country should allow you to make death threats without consequences because of free speech.

        No country should allow you to tell lies in verbal or written contract because of free speech

        Because there are certain rules our society is build upon.

        Freedom of Speech is a right granted to you by the democratic society and framework of laws. Those intentionally leaving the implicit agreements of democratic society or established law behind (and literal nazis qualify) should lose protection of the same.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I used to be a very strong proponent of freedom of speech, but after seeing what that has been used for and the damage it has done I fully agree that limits are necessary.

          That said I’m approaching the problem from a different angle. I think you absolutely have a right to say whatever you want, but there’s an equivalent right that other people don’t have to be subjected to what you have to say. To further expand on that idea people must be informed about the content of what you’re saying. You’re perfectly within your right for instance to insist that the world is flat, but before talking about that in public people need to be informed that you’re about to go off on a fringe theory that has literal centuries of evidence that runs counter to it and that if they don’t want to hear it they need to leave now.

          In online spaces this problem becomes easier to handle, just apply content warnings, something like community notes, and hide the content by default until people opt into viewing it.

          Edit: also we need to reevaluate this whole “corporations are people and have the exact same rights to freedom of speech” thing. I think we should generally be very accepting of a person’s speech, but much more strict about a companies speech, especially commercial speech.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Not for folks who openly advocate against it themselves.

        The rights of a democracy ought not be permitted to protect acts fully intended at undermining the democratic rights of the people.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Encouraging an explicitly genocidal political movement is not protected free speech, similar to how a person can be charged with a crime for threatening someones life.

      • cum@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nazis are literally trying to take the free speech away from others

        • Pratai@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Who else do we know that wants to imprison people simply because of their beliefs?

          Now, before you accuse me of “bootlicking,” or “sympathizing,” know that I find Nazis to be among the most abhorrent people that have ever existed- but I also also recognize that simply having a belief- regardless of how shitty it is- should never be a punishable offense.

          Lest we become what we hate in others.

            • Pratai@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Cool. You are exactly what you hate. And to me, just as bad as they are. You don’t get to play by THEIR rules just because you believe they are wrong…. .

              You play by THE rules because you know you ARE right.