We also have freedom of speech, and we should use it.  Last year many cities chose to remove or relocate confederate monuments in response to protests by the public (not referring to the ones where protestors tore down statues themselves), op-eds, letters written to council members, etc.  That's the right way to go about this.

I think our understanding of the First Amendment differs slightly - in all my studies, the one thing that I very clearly remember coming away with, was that your First Amendment right to free speech guarantees your right to say (almost) anything you wish - what you DON'T have a right to is a bull horn, soapbox, or printing press to go with it.

I do agree that the best way to go about removing these monuments is through the political process (e.g., legislative) AND I absolutely abhor a "heckler's veto".  However, just like I have a perfect right to walk SAFELY and PEACEABLY down a dark alley in a bad part of town in the dead of night, I shouldn't feign shock and awe when I am mugged or worse.

Similarly, if I want to erect a monument of a treasonous, racist, slaver or World War II genocidal dictator in full public view of everyone, I must KNOW this is going to happen and be ready to deal with the consequences (e.g, repair, replace, or remove).

Marc

Sorry Marc, but I don't understand what you mean by this.  Please clarify. 

The First Amendment gives you the right of expression.  You're not entitled to an audience.  If that is what you're saying, I agree with you.

As I understand it, this is a situation where a private organization purchased plots in a cemetery, raised money, and then used private funds to erect a monument on their plots; apparently with the blessing of the city (which sold them the plots).   

I don't think that's equivalent to shouting in someone's face with a bull horn.  

"Similarly, if I want to erect a monument of a treasonous, racist, slaver or World War II genocidal dictator in full public view of everyone, I must KNOW this is going to happen and be ready to deal with the consequences (e.g, repair, replace, or remove)."

I agree, but I think that is beside the point.  You'd be foolish to walk down a dark alley where you knew there was a high probability that you'd be mugged.  But your foolishness doesn't justify the mugging.  The muggers are still in the wrong.  

In all my posts, I never said the vandals were in the right - I was simply saying this should have been seen coming  from miles away.  But then can an organization that is so obsessed with looking backwards that it calls itself the Daughters of the Confederacy really be counted on to look ahead.

Marc

=======================================================

Rebecca,

The crazy thing is that these folks are not ignorant of what the Confederate flag and their Civil War "heroes" represent.

They know the racist history behind it, but choose to look the other way.

Each time I hear heritage from their mouths, the more I know that I am dealing with an asshole.

You are absolutely right.  This isn't about protecting a statue.  Its about protecting a person's right to erect a statue.  The right of people to dissent is essential.  

Right now its easy for us to condemn these statues, and condemn the men they depict, because our generation is more enlightened than theirs.  Its not controversial to refer to Davis in the derogatory terms Marc has used.  

But history (even recent history) teaches us the majority is not always right.  

Marc is a strong advocate for LGBTQ rights on this forum.  Less than 60 years ago, if Marc erected a statue of a gay icon in his front yard, and it was vandalized or torn down, the majority would have been okay with that, because it would have been seen as symbolizing the corruption of traditional moral values.    

We live in increasingly divisive times.  I would wager that most of us are exposed to speech that we find offensive on a daily basis; especially of we're watching the news, or participating in any form of social media.

Its important that we know how to productively deal with dissenting opinions.  

Marc, I didn't mean to imply that.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I just meant that the foreseeability of the vandalism doesn't justify the vandalism.  

To do so would be morally reprehensible, and one would hope the entire community would come together to express disapproval, but yes, you would be entitled to freedom of expression in this instance.