Citizen complaint of the day: Nazis put up posters in Dorchester, too

A concerned citizen took matters into his own hands this morning before filing a 311 complaint about a white-supremacist flier posted at Gallivan Boulevard and Dorchester Avenue that was different from the ones posted in East Boston:

Racist flyer posted on the corner of Gallivan and Dot Ave. I took down the flyer so there's no need for removal, but something needs to be done to address this incident of racism.

Neighborhoods: 

Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

"Something needs to be done"

By on

Careful with that request. Yes this stuff is vile, but the First Amendment still protects it.

Private citizens can and should deal with this, not the city.

up
Voting closed 45

Where do you live?

Can they put it on your property, too?

I'm guessing ... no.

Too bad we've lost so many bowling alleys:

up
Voting closed 13

If you care to read back

By on

literally one day, you’ll find the story about the police detail in East Boston that caught a group of guys who were wearing masks and carrying weapons while hanging their Nazi propaganda. Should private citizens also be dealing with them, or are you just being a disingenuous asshole?

up
Voting closed 34

My position is the same

By on

There's nothing unlawful about people wearing masks hanging up racist posters. Despicable, yes, but not unlawful.

Private citizens should not be "dealing with them" directly, in the way you mean it, ie, confronting them violently. But yes, private citizens should take the posters down.

And if you actually read the story you referenced (https://www.universalhub.com/comment/714763) you'll see that the masked suspects "were not charged in connection with the posters." They were charged for being (alleged) idiots and assaulting the police. (Don't worry, I won't call you a 'disingenuous asshole')

up
Voting closed 18

The problem is that the

By on

The problem is that the charges appear ginned up.

Not arresting you for the posters. *wink*

up
Voting closed 3

Yes there is

There's nothing unlawful about people wearing masks hanging up racist posters..

Putting up posters -- of any kind, whether racist, or yard sale ads, or political flyers -- on property that's not yours, without the permission of the property owner -- is illegal.

I'm not advocating for selective enforcement based on the content of the poster: I think everyone who defaces public property with junk should be punished equally.

up
Voting closed 5

The govt can't arrest you for

By on

The govt can't arrest you for being a nazi, but they can absolutely penalize you for vandalism and littering.

I worked on a campaign a while back where we had to regularly send out people to clean up well-meaning(?) bumper stickers pasted onto light poles and similar.

Iirc the fine was around $350 per sticker per day.

You can be a nazi. Public parks are not your personal billboards. Both things are true and compatible. Deal with it.

up
Voting closed 21

Free speech is complex

These people can hang whatever signs they want in their yards, windows, and cars. But these people are cowardly don't want to be publicly associated with their views.

Freedom of speech means the Government can't jail someone for their words. But that doesn't mean the government needs to provide a forum (a street sign or telephone pole) for such views either.

up
Voting closed 14

I definitely understand the

I definitely understand the point you're making here. Your point that "Freedom of speech means the Government can't jail someone for their words" is rather simplistic though.

The government can and does, in fact, "jail people for their words." Ask Michelle Carter...or Paul Manafort...or Michael Cohen.

It's so trite that fascist/bigoted language is the most commonly defended/devil's advocate'd form of "free speech." Boston's own free speech champion, The Honorable (Sister) Regina Quinlan-Doherty has done way more to advance the cause of constitutional protections of free speech; the first cases she took practicing law was defending the First Amendment rights of adult bookstores and strip clubs in the Combat Zone back in the day.

To you point about the cowardice of these folks: at least Mrs. Quinlan-Doherty has the stones to list her legal defense of Combat Zone businesses on her St. Anthony's Shrine website bio. Yet the provisions of free speech to "encourage robust debate of diverse ideas": how is that being honored if these scared-ass Nazis mask up, put up fliers like rats sneaking around in the dark...and absconding into the night?

Quinlan-Doherty left her life as a nun to defend free speech in Boston. And she's not ashamed of the important work that she's done, defending the constitutional rights of so-called "obscene" businesses.

Lastly, unless the person is Lenny Bruce (RIP) or Mike Diana then I don't wanna hear anyone's entitled whining about being "persecuted" by the "PC police." Diana was "the first person to receive a criminal conviction in the United States for artistic obscenity" on March 29, 1994.

up
Voting closed 4

Hilarious

By on

The government can and does, in fact, "jail people for their words." Ask Michelle Carter...or Paul Manafort...or Michael Cohen.

Uh, no. Lying under oath is not protected speech. Nice attempted derail with the porn, though.

up
Voting closed 12

Ah, words!

1.) The good folks at Merriam-Websters define "derail" as "to cause to run off the rails." That is the opposite of acknowledging someone's point and expanding a discussion of points said person brought up.

2) Michelle Carter was convicted because of her words, namely her texts (which are words) to Conrad Roy. Manafort and Cohen were convicted for their words. So... what claim are you arguing against exactly? Mike Diana was convicted of artistic obscenity for his comics...so technically he was "jailed for his pictures." Still, whatever you are huffing at is still unclear.

3) Can you clarify how citing Regina Quinlan's legal work of the first amendment (free speech) rights of adult businesses "derails" a discussion on this post about free speech? Thanks in advance.

Words: when you learn what they mean and learn how to use them...they can be quite fun! Please stay mad though.

up
Voting closed 3

Are you nutty?

By on

Paul Manafort was convicted of subscribing to false income tax returns, failing to report foreign accounts, and bank fraud. He pled guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstructing justice.

up
Voting closed 9

Weak ad hominem attacks are weak

Paul Manafort was convicted of subscribing to false income tax returns, failing to report foreign accounts, and bank fraud. He pled guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstructing justice.

"False tax returns" are not something that one can subscribe to, like one subscribes to a magazine. Please choose a better verb.

And there's this: "On February 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to investigators and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States." The feds got him on witness tampering, too...gonna take a wild guess and say that he used his words to tamper with witnesses.

Your raging Manafort boner aside: freedom of speech goes beyond "one's words." At the heart of freedom of speech is the content of one's ideas/beliefs expressed in the act of speech.

Anyway, Regina Quinlan is a boss. And Massachusetts courts have ruled that flipping the bird (at police officers) is a protected form of free speech...with certain limitations:

https://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/post_278.html

It's really obvious you have nothing of substance to add to this discussion but your replies to my comments bring more engagement to this post. Thanks, bud! And please stay mad.

up
Voting closed 3

Weak language is weak

By on

"False tax returns" are not something that one can subscribe to, like one subscribes to a magazine. Please choose a better verb.

I'll use the verb from the indictment, thanks very much. You don't like it? Take it up with the legal profession.

And there's this: "On February 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to investigators and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States." The feds got him on witness tampering, too...gonna take a wild guess and say that he used his words to tamper with witnesses.

You really are insane if you think that has anything whatsoever to do with freedom of speech.

Your raging Manafort boner aside: freedom of speech goes beyond "one's words." At the heart of freedom of speech is the content of one's ideas/beliefs expressed in the act of speech.

Yes, dear. Don't strain your back moving those goalposts.

up
Voting closed 5

Nazi Posters

"Hey dude, what should we do for fun tonight?"
"I know, lets go put up a bunch of nazi posters in East Boston and Dot."
"Okay, but we better wear masks and do it under the cover of darkness so we don't get our asses kicked."
"Well duh!"
Seriously, what the f is up with these losers? I guess this is what paint sniffers do when they run out of Sherwin Williams.

up
Voting closed 18

let's be completely clear

By on

that at this point we can't believe a small minority of fascist assholes can take over our civic functions, so we look at these Nazi dipshits as punks who will never have power over us, who have no one they can call to get us in trouble for not being trump's valentine.. you could say we have a point of view, one that appears durable, given how outnumbered we think these infantile twits are. and we still have the graciousness to consider their rights to espouse poisons of their choosing. there is no answer other than the rule of law. but you would be wise to understand what this nazi shit actually is, because it is more than a point of view they have: it's a way of being. god willing it stays diffuse and continues to look like to work of a few random incel dipshits.

up
Voting closed 8