White Supremacists In Supporter Section

Well clearly the SPLC is full of shit since they don't tolerate white supremacists.
No one's saying that. If you don't think it's worth having this discussion because your mind is made up, then why keep contributing to this discussion? If you do think it's worth having this discussion, why keep sabotaging it?
 
As someone who’s a target of both white supremecists and people of color, I’ll say that I too have an issue with straight up banning people entry to a public place based on their beliefs. It’s a slippery slope. That these particular individuals have a history of violence changes the narrative. We all need to be safe. So if that’s the case, it’s different. Do I want to sit next to Farrakhan at a match? Hells fucking no! But he has a right to come, and I might move to a different part of the stadium if he sat next to me. But that’s my right too. And that’s his. I’m sick of scenes of people being chased out of restaurants because of their views. That’s not America as it’s intended. Ok I’m done, carry on.
It's not a slippery slope. There's a bright clear line between "bad opinions" and violent/discriminatory behaviors.

Being a Nazi isn't protected speech.
 
Look at a few posts before me. There's a reddit post with 420 comments about our supporter section harboring members of hate groups. I didn't think wanting our supporters to stand as a unit and unilaterally condemn those people and disassociating ourselves from them would be controversial or considered extreme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Jee
It's not a slippery slope. There's a bright clear line between "bad opinions" and violent/discriminatory behaviors.

Being a Nazi isn't protected speech.
Having views that Nazis hold is actually part of protected speech. The ACLU has actually received a ton of backlash in the past for defending local Nazi groups when they have organized marches or gatherings and have been shut down. Their speech is protected, but it doesn't protect them from being bigoted assholes. (there's actually a really good podcast that covers Free Speech that is hosted by a guy I've taken to a Hudson River Derby game)

Now, carrying out those views and engaging in intimidation, physical violence, and other criminal activities are definitely not protected whatsoever.
 
So I think we both agree. We should both also clarify there are 2 types of supporters groups. Ones that are recognized by the club (and there are benchmarks to get there; # of members, non-profit, etc...) and ones who are not. I think any groups that are recognized by the club should have a pledge of inclusiveness and anti-discrimination by its members as an additional benchmark. Because they in essence represent the club as a whole.

And any non-recognized group can do as they please, come to matches, and hate who they want. But the first instance of violence in the name of that group, should lead to all of them being banned.

PS. The forums with our scarves, swag, and random meetups is a non-recognized group. Just as an FYI. And we’re a pretty good example of how to self-police a supporters group.

forum swag? o.o since when?
 
Protected speech has nothing to do with this situation. 1st Amendment only applies to governmental action. Constitution doesn't give you a right to sit in the supporters section at Yankee Stadium.
Agreed. When protected speech was brought up earlier, it was done so in a broader context and not specific to the supporters section in Yankee Stadium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kangaroo Jack
Ask NYCFC_Dan NYCFC_Dan he might have some Forum T-shirts and sweatshirts lying around.
damn, I didn't even know there was forum swag LOL niiiice

-------------

My take on this issue is that it doesn't matter 1st amendment or not, this is a private establishment where the rules of who can enter or not are set by a specific person. They will not allow you into the stadium because you're wearing a giraffe onesie. Letting in people with a clear history of hate and violence means the FO understands that, and willingly lets these people in regardless of that history. While I do agree that in our country we are allowed to express our opinions, even as racist/supremacist as they get, I do think that when considering the context of allowing them into the stadium, it's a completely different story.
My University has a no-tolerance policy to any sort of hate, racism, etc such that any pretty minor offense gets clubs disbanded and students suspended. I think that falls in line with what NYCFC should be doing, though not nearly with as minor of offenses as a school would.
 
The SPLC has a lot of problems. We need an organization that does what they do, but there are a lot of legitimate questions about them. They throw around labels like “white supremicist” way too broadly - which cheapens the impact of that label. They also have a lot of questions around their fundraising and potential abuses.

The point being that you can legitimately question their labels without being a radical right wing zealot.

I commend this article from last year in Politico to those who are curious.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312
 
The SPLC has a lot of problems. We need an organization that does what they do, but there are a lot of legitimate questions about them. They throw around labels like “white supremicist” way too broadly - which cheapens the impact of that label. They also have a lot of questions around their fundraising and potential abuses.

The point being that you can legitimately question their labels without being a radical right wing zealot.

I commend this article from last year in Politico to those who are curious.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312
Are the labels true for the case we are talking about? The answer is yes. Let's not get distracted poisoning the well like we did discussing Shaun King.
 
Are the labels true for the case we are talking about? The answer is yes. Let's not get distracted poisoning the well.
Also this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html

I don't know one way or the other whether all of their reporting on 211 BB / B49 / Proud Boys is legit. If so, it's a shame that some of their slip ups have tarnished their credibility. Definitely gives me pause.

I'm not yet personally comfortable calling for bans, and not at all comfortable with doxxing and guilt by association, but I don't think there is anything wrong with being very publicly against violence and hate in our club, and showing up in numbers.

There are some concerned fans organizing over at truebluesnycfc@protonmail.com.
 
SIGH , so it is it a sign we're growing into a real football league when we have to worn about racist or fascist violent hooligans?

Also I hate these bastards for trying to ruin Fred Perry for us non violent non racist hipsters.

Funny you mention that:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/sep/25/mls-ultras-fans-supporters-groups

But no I don't think it's anywhere near that but this incident really hurts our nycf image across the league regardless of which side you in.
 
SIGH , so it is it a sign we're growing into a real football league when we have to worn about racist or fascist violent hooligans?

Also I hate these bastards for trying to ruin Fred Perry for us non violent non racist hipsters.
And here I was thinking that the narrative was that hipsters ruin everything.