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?
White Supremacists In Supporter Section
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
I think I have some scarves and magnets stillAskNYCFC_Dan he might have some Forum T-shirts and sweatshirts lying around.
damn, I didn't even know there was forum swag LOL niiiiceAsk
-------------
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 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
Mods, can we change the title of this thread? For posterity reasons - right now it's too damn vague
My first thoughts would be something like:
White Supremacists in Supporters Section
or
Fascists in Supporters Section
Open to suggestions, of course.
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.
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.
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.
And here I was thinking that the narrative was that hipsters ruin everything.
Similar threads
