Saturday, August 19, 2017

'Punching Nazis should not be a crime'

Yvette Felarca who was filmed punching a white nationalist during a demonstration is calling for all charges against her to be dropped because she says 'standing up to Nazism is not a crime'.

According to Berkelyside, Felarca has been very involved in the 2014 Black Lives Matter protests, also participated in a number of rallies this year that turned violent.

Felarca protested Milo Yiannopolous’ appearance at UC Berkeley on Feb. 1 and directly confronted pro-Trump protesters on March 4 and April 15 in rallies in Civic Center Park that turned violent. She also appeared on Fox News after the Yiannopolous riots to say she was obligated to shut down his “racist, misogynistic and homophobic” messages.

Felarca, a Berkeley middle school teacher, apparently isn't aware of how the First Amendment to the Constitution works.

Here is some background:


  1. If the Progressive left think that punching Nazis or suppressing the free speech of Nazis is all ok, then guess what: if the progressives disagree with you, you are a Nazi.

  2. I mean, technically wouldn't violence against any advocate of statism (especially in a democracy, where it's not just idle talk) potentially qualify as self-defense?

    I'm seriously asking, though. I think most libertarians would agree that violence is justified against someone who hired a hitman, or against, say, Truman who was advocating nuclear war, even though they didn't personally engage in violence. So where's the line?

    1. I think there has to be an imminent threat from the person against whom you want to act in self-defense. Merely advocating for statism doesn't strike me as an imminent threat. Nor does a principal hiring an agent to do his dirty work for him.

      There is a difference between assessing who is liable for a wrong and acting in self-defense. So the principal could be held liable for his agent's wrongful acts if they were essentially colluding to commit a wrong. But if only the agent is the one committing the wrong then self-defense would only be appropriate against the agent.

      Self-defense is an immediate reaction to an imminent or materialized threat. Liability is an ex post consideration of who should be held responsible.

    2. Perhaps so, but if someone is advocating a policy that places me under slavery then punching them in the face seems like a good idea. I wish someone would punch this stupid Twit in the face.