Summary
A group of masked men with Nazi flags protested outside a performance of “The Diary of Anne Frank” in Howell, Michigan, shouting antisemitic slurs.
Audience members were reportedly frightened and needed escorts to their cars. The Fowlerville Community Theatre, which staged the play, described the protesters’ presence as a disturbing reminder of the fear faced by Holocaust victims.
The Anti-Defamation League condemned the display. The incident follows other recent displays of racism in the area.
So when is violence in response to fascists and specifically Nazis okay? Because they start with rhetoric then move fairly quickly on to violence. As in we are in the last part of their rhetoric as they are now openly waving flags without challenge.
When our police and justice system fails, and we officially live in a failed state, then all bets are off.
But until then, if your neighbor yells “I think you all should die” out his window, it doesn’t suddenly justify the neighbors taking matters into their own hands, busting down his door, and “overwhelming” him. That’s wild west law.
You don’t bust down his door, but when he in the street with a NAZI flag, feel free to bust his nose.
That’s the same thing. It’s inconsistent to argue that it’s ok to violate a person’s autonomy for what they yell in public, but not for what they yell out their window.
I mean, realisticly I’m not going to stop you from punching a self-described nazi, I’m just going to ask that you be consistent about when you believe it’s ethical to do so.
Edit: the US actually has a legal grey area around this topic deemed “fighting words”, which is speech that the jury agrees is immediately threatening enough that the person had no choice but to physically respond. This obviously can get pretty unethical in its interpretation. If a nazi yells “fuck the jews” outside an Anne Frank play, I think no jury would have a problem if they get hit. Does that also mean if someone else yells “fuck the police” outside a police station, the cops are justified in beating them?
There is a difference here:
Window dude is being a nuisance that should be dealt with. But he isn’t being specific, nor is he showing any tendency for violence. He’s just being a shit bag.
Nazi flag dude is out in the street, his views are specific and violent. They are a call to commit violence on a mass scale towards minority groups. Nazis (and fascists of all kinds) frequently get violent, without being the first to be hit.
Yelling out the window is a warning sign, waving a Nazi flag in public is an act of hate, and demonstration of an adherence to a violent ideology.
We’re still not on the same page. The intention of the analogy is that he’s doing the same thing in public as he is out his window. Waving a flag and yelling are both first amendment protected actions, so I wasn’t drawing a distinction between the two, but apparently it’s causing confusion, so for the sake of the discussion, let’s say he’s flying a swastika out his window vs flying it in front of a theater.
So now my question is: is there a difference between you punching him in the face in public vs breaking into his house and punching him there?
Because the answer is no, in either case (for better or worse) you are violating his autonomy.
But my original point that got us here is: you shouldn’t want to punch him OR break into his house, because if whatever he’s doing is actually encouraging violence, you should want to have a functioning police and justice system to handle the situation in a fair and consistent manner. To do anything less is to admit you do not live in a functioning society. Which, sure, maybe that’s the case, but as long as we agree on what “ideal” is, my hope us we can agree to work towards that. Punching a nazi is treating a symptom, it’s not a solution to any problem.