What is "Black Lives Matter"?

[chipbennett]

I dropped that point because who knows? The meaning and interpretation of the law you cited vs the authority of the city county council is really a matter for the courts, not INGO'ers. I don't know enough about street murals and the law to know if there are any precedents.

Oh, I think there are ample precedents. The courts have often weighed in on the matter of protected political speech and the constitutionally required impartiality of the government in regulating political speech. Whether those decisions are all controlling on Indianapolis, who knows. That said, I present for consideration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/california-blm-maga-art/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/1/dc-sued-over-black-lives-matter-painted-city-stree/

 

[foszoe]

I should have been more clear. Local precedents that we do know apply. The articles do support what I was saying though, it seems to be a matter for the courts to decide and until then we can all have opinions.

Oh, I think there are ample precedents. The courts have often weighed in on the matter of protected political speech and the constitutionally required impartiality of the government in regulating political speech. Whether those decisions are all controlling on Indianapolis, who knows. That said, I present for consideration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/california-blm-maga-art/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/1/dc-sued-over-black-lives-matter-painted-city-stree/

 

[JTScribe]

I think the odds are pretty good that the Indy BLM mural was installed with an eye toward being defaced...

...it plays right into the narrative of the wing-nut brigade of the American Political Left. (Look how racist those hoosiers are, blah blah, etc...).

I don't have strong feelings about the mural as a work of art or as a political statement, but I am disheartened by how easily this has been used as a wedge by those who want to divide us...it's just paint on asphalt - it doesn't change a damn thing between us as citizens and neighbors.

Race itself is a flawed construct, a lie we have been told so often it starts to have the ring of truth to it. We need to do a better job of separating the lies from truth.

ETA:

I have no problem admitting that I loath fascism...but I don't support ANTIFA. Along those sam lines, while I have no problem proclaiming "black lives matter!" loudly and sincerely, do not make the mistake of thinking I support the Black Lives Matter(TM) political action group or their marxist ambitions. Recognize the Mott-and-Bailey fallacy when you see it, and beware of its trap.

In this context, capitalization says everything. Well said.

 

[jamil]

This is the same point that I made, that hasn't gotten much response. If defacing a public roadway by painting a BLM "mural" is protected speech, how can the defacing of that mural not also constitute protected speech?

I can disagree with allowing defacing of a public roadway, disagree with the BLM message, and also disagree with defacing the "mural" - while still recognizing that the state is constitutionally prohibited from playing favorites with respect to which of these acts constitute protected speech and which do not.

I'd really love for that question in this context to go to the SCOTUS. I have some doubts that a John Roberts court would take something like that up though. But not a case where someone painted over a BLM mural.

There are a couple of questions for SCOTUS to answer which would require separate cases I think.

1) is it equally free speech to paint over someone else's mural on public property? It's conceptually the same thing as a speaker on a soap box in the public square being drown out by a person with a bullhorn. Is limiting someone else's free speech, free speech itself?

2) If the government allows defacing public property by one political group must they allow any political group equal space?


The former is a little related to the heckler's veto, where one party threatens some action which causes authorities to shut down another party's free speech. I think right or wrong, the government could win that case. Local governments often separate opposing groups during protests to prevent violent conflict, and I think they could apply that to murals painted on streets as well as bullhorns used to drown out another's free speech.

The second seems clearly cut to me, that the government must either give equal space to all parties, or no space. I think that question needs challenged more than the former, and so I think sane people should paint murals on streets that run counter to BLM. I'm not talking about racist ****. There are many legitimate criticisms of BLM and I think people should press the issue of equal free speech. If the local government removes that mural and not BLM's, sue them. And then take it all the way to SCOTUS. Governments that give one side's free speech precedent over opposing sides must be ***** slapped.

 

[chipbennett]

I'd really love for that question in this context to go to the SCOTUS. I have some doubts that a John Roberts court would take something like that up though. But not a case where someone painted over a BLM mural.

There are a couple of questions for SCOTUS to answer which would require separate cases I think.

1) is it equally free speech to paint over someone else's mural on public property? It's conceptually the same thing as a speaker on a soap box in the public square being drown out by a person with a bullhorn. Is limiting someone else's free speech, free speech itself?

2) If the government allows defacing public property by one political group must they allow any political group equal space?


The former is a little related to the heckler's veto, where one party threatens some action which causes authorities to shut down another party's free speech. I think right or wrong, the government could win that case. Local governments often separate opposing groups during protests to prevent violent conflict, and I think they could apply that to murals painted on streets as well as bullhorns used to drown out another's free speech.

It isn't a case of denying one form of speech, because the original speech has already taken place, and the discussion is now what speech can take place after that original speech. I think it is probably more like a public bulletin board. Anyone can post anything - and anyone else can post anything else, even right on top of what was previously posted.

I don't think the heckler's veto applies - unless it is applied to the people fencing off public property, and "protecting" a public roadway surface with threats of deadly force.

The second seems clearly cut to me, that the government must either give equal space to all parties, or no space. I think that question needs challenged more than the former, and so I think sane people should paint murals on streets that run counter to BLM. I'm not talking about racist ****. There are many legitimate criticisms of BLM and I think people should press the issue of equal free speech. If the local government removes that mural and not BLM's, sue them. And then take it all the way to SCOTUS. Governments that give one side's free speech precedent over opposing sides must be ***** slapped.

Right; which is the gist of the two articles I posted.

 

[jamil]

I think the odds are pretty good that the Indy BLM mural was installed with an eye toward being defaced...

...it plays right into the narrative of the wing-nut brigade of the American Political Left. (Look how racist those hoosiers are, blah blah, etc...).

I don't have strong feelings about the mural as a work of art or as a political statement, but I am disheartened by how easily this has been used as a wedge by those who want to divide us...it's just paint on asphalt - it doesn't change a damn thing between us as citizens and neighbors.

Race itself is a flawed construct, a lie we have been told so often it starts to have the ring of truth to it. We need to do a better job of separating the lies from truth.

ETA:

I have no problem admitting that I loath fascism...but I don't support ANTIFA. Along those sam lines, while I have no problem proclaiming "black lives matter!" loudly and sincerely, do not make the mistake of thinking I support the Black Lives Matter(TM) political action group or their marxist ambitions. Recognize the Mott-and-Bailey fallacy when you see it, and beware of its trap.

First, it seems extremely obvious that US is in far greater danger of falling to left wing Marxism than it into a right wing fascism. Fascist have nearly zero social capital right now. Wokeness owns all the major institutions. Education, media, government, business. Go against woke and they just say you don't think black lives matter.

The street murals, yeah, it's paint on asphalt, but it symbolizes an ideology that is central and dominant in the culture war. It's like saying, it's just a damn flag. Governments should either disallow murals on public property or if they allow some or one, they must allow all. I'd rather they allowed none. Streets aren't canvas.

About race. It's a social construct. But that doesn't mean the thing we call race is nothing. It's really heritage/ancestry. We acknowledge heredity/ancestry in domestic animals and we call distinctive ancestry "breeds". Not that I'm comparing people to animals. I'm just pointing out that making designations about differences between heritage isn't completely as a social construct intended as ill will. It's just that with people, our acknowledgement of heritage/ancestry has been problematic because we have assigned social stigmas to some distinctive heredity over others. We assign social meaning to physical features evolved through isolated heritage. The flaw in the construct isn't that we've noticed that some people have physical differences. Cultures form from ancestral identity. Dominant cultural ancestries have assigned value according to those differences. What it appears that BLM is trying to do, that critical race theory is trying to do, is flip the dominance, not equalize it. If we want equality, we need to stop caring so much about race. It does not appear to me that BLM is interested in that at all.

 

[jamil]

Oh, I think there are ample precedents. The courts have often weighed in on the matter of protected political speech and the constitutionally required impartiality of the government in regulating political speech. Whether those decisions are all controlling on Indianapolis, who knows. That said, I present for consideration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/california-blm-maga-art/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/1/dc-sued-over-black-lives-matter-painted-city-stree/

The law suits need to be numerous. Every city that has BLM murals painted on streets need to be challenged in court. Either allow everyone to do it or no one.

 

[BugI02]

I think the odds are pretty good that the Indy BLM mural was installed with an eye toward being defaced...

...it plays right into the narrative of the wing-nut brigade of the American Political Left. (Look how racist those hoosiers are, blah blah, etc...).

I don't have strong feelings about the mural as a work of art or as a political statement, but I am disheartened by how easily this has been used as a wedge by those who want to divide us...it's just paint on asphalt - it doesn't change a damn thing between us as citizens and neighbors.

Race itself is a flawed construct, a lie we have been told so often it starts to have the ring of truth to it. We need to do a better job of separating the lies from truth.

ETA:

I have no problem admitting that I loath fascism...but I don't support ANTIFA. Along those sam lines, while I have no problem proclaiming "black lives matter!" loudly and sincerely, do not make the mistake of thinking I support the Black Lives Matter(TM) political action group or their marxist ambitions. Recognize the Mott-and-Bailey fallacy when you see it, and beware of its trap.

Non sequitur

If race is a 'construct' used to divide us (which I agree with), why is it necessary to say anything more than 'life/lives matter'? It still makes it seem like there is some relative scale based on race

Indicative of the problems you mention, you were unable to complete the post without an appeal to that 'construct' as well as aquiescing to the clearly fascist necessity to demonstrate fealty by 'proclaiming' black lives matter

 

[foszoe]

I say let the city's rent out the streets for murals and collect Revenue.

Just imagine what a dead dismembered fetus would look like in front of an abortion clinic

 

[Route 45]

“That is reparations,” a BLM organizer said. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.”


https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-holds-rally-chicago-support-arrested-looting-unrest

 

[PaulF]

Do you think that those less knowledgeable than you might see your proclamation as support for the group?

I think people more knowledgeable than myself might still fall victim to this trap...marketing like this has a broad and insidious effect, and I think it's pretty easy to get hooked. That very issue is why controversial groups hide behind otherwise innocent language, it creates a place to hide their true intentions.

Non sequitur

If race is a 'construct' used to divide us (which I agree with), why is it necessary to say anything more than 'life/lives matter'? It still makes it seem like there is some relative scale based on race

Indicative of the problems you mention, you were unable to complete the post without an appeal to that 'construct' as well as aquiescing to the clearly fascist necessity to demonstrate fealty by 'proclaiming' black lives matter

The way I look at it is simple...if someone needs to hear from me (personally) that black lives matter to me (personally), I will gladly tell them so...I want there to be no doubt that I hold anyone in differing regard due to their race. At the same time, I am reluctant to attach myself to that statement more broadly or publicly, owing to the vast ideological rift that exists between myself and the group that has hijacked that phrase.

 

[HoughMade]

“That is reparations,” a BLM organizer said. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.”


https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-holds-rally-chicago-support-arrested-looting-unrest

I saw that BLM idiot interviewed. The "reparations" statement isn't even the stupidest thing she said.

[video=youtube;gU781fGlhvA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU781fGlhvA[/video]

 

[BigRed]

I saw that BLM idiot interviewed. The "reparations" statement isn't even the stupidest thing she said.

[video=youtube;gU781fGlhvA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU781fGlhvA[/video]

Yet another example showing that the difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius.

 

[foszoe]

if it is reparations, can I get a receipt for my portion please so i don't have to pay later?

 

[HoughMade]

if it is reparations, can I get a receipt for my portion please so i don't have to pay later?

I'm going to need some evidence that I have personally benefited from slavery...and if that is forthcoming, the name of the formerly enslaved person I should send the check to.

 

[spencer rifle]

I'm going to need some evidence that I have personally benefited from slavery...and if that is forthcoming, the name of the formerly enslaved person I should send the check to.

Logic LOL. You will drown in a sea of "feelings."

 

[printcraft]

if it is reparations, can I get a receipt for my portion please so i don't have to pay later?

I'm going to need some evidence that I have personally benefited from slavery...and if that is forthcoming, the name of the formerly enslaved person I should send the check to.

It's going to be front and center on the 2024 democrat platform. Just wait.

No, you won't get a receipt other than your tax return showing your "contribution" to the fund.

 

[BugI02]

I think people more knowledgeable than myself might still fall victim to this trap...marketing like this has a broad and insidious effect, and I think it's pretty easy to get hooked. That very issue is why controversial groups hide behind otherwise innocent language, it creates a place to hide their true intentions.





The way I look at it is simple...if someone needs to hear from me (personally) that black lives matter to me (personally), I will gladly tell them so...I want there to be no doubt that I hold anyone in differing regard due to their race. At the same time, I am reluctant to attach myself to that statement more broadly or publicly, owing to the vast ideological rift that exists between myself and the group that has hijacked that phrase.

Yes, if only we could get them on a violation of truth in advertising laws

But if they frame it that somehow black lives need to matter more, because;reasons du jour, I'm out

 

[BigRed]

Oh, I think there are ample precedents. The courts have often weighed in on the matter of protected political speech and the constitutionally required impartiality of the government in regulating political speech. Whether those decisions are all controlling on Indianapolis, who knows. That said, I present for consideration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/california-blm-maga-art/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/1/dc-sued-over-black-lives-matter-painted-city-stree/

Looks like we might find out....

[video=youtube;pzWo_E56y8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzWo_E56y8Y[/video]

 

[Sigblitz]

I like this guy.