Sex Worker Jessie Colter Assaulted In San Francisco By Two Clients In Town For White Supremacist Rally

Posted August 24, 2017 by with 72 comments

jessiePerformer and sex worker Jessie Colter went to meet with two clients early this morning in San Francisco, and he’s just shared the news that those two clients assaulted him during the meeting. Colter reported the incident to authorities, and he was able to escape “pretty much unscathed.” Via Colter’s Twitter:

DIBpUksUQAAJAFHColter’s two assailants may have been involved with this weekend’s white supremacist rally in San Francisco, according to what police told him.

Incidents like this unfortunately occur regularly for sex workers, and while Jessie Colter was not seriously harmed, many sex workers aren’t as lucky. Making matters worse, some sex workers don’t feel safe reporting these incidents to police because of potential legal consequences they themselves might face. Two years ago, male escort service Rentboy was raided and shut down by the U.S. Homeland Security, and its founder was recently sentenced to prison. By shutting down an organized and resourceful service that helped so many (something even the judge overseeing the case admitted), the government has only further marginalized, alienated, and endangered sex workers.

Last month, a black male sex worker was killed while meeting with a wealthy white client in West Hollywood. Police and the district attorney are being accused of not properly investigating the crime, because of the victim’s profession and race.

  • Danny Boi

    Just another reason sex work needs to be legalized. We need to protect them and be able to report crimes without fear that police will retaliate against them. Police constantly use sex workers for tip-offs on human trafficking and other criminals yet will discriminate against consenting, adult sex workers. :-/

    Also, I’ve always been a fan of Jessie. I’m so sorry this happened to him, and I’m relieved that it didn’t get worse. wish I could help somehow.

  • nick

    I’m guessing the lack of effort in the Hollywood case is more to do with the victims race than profession.

    I always used to think of the USA as some kind of free and easy going utopia (based on US the tv shows we got in the uk) but it’s really not looking that way just lately, it’s looking like Iran with more religious nutters.

    • Hari Kalyan

      Right. If he looked like, say, Zac Efron, there’d be a constitutional amendment by now

      • NickDC

        If he looked like Zac Efron and drugs + prominent political donor weren’t involved this would definitely be far more visible.

      • pangelboy

        James Franco would already have written the script.

    • Yu Ri

      wow! did you really believe in this utopic usa because of the tv shows?!? that was the very same reason i started being afraid of americans…

      • nick

        I was young, I didn’t watch the news or anything reality based

        • Pertinax

          Me too.

    • Pertinax

      And to think this ” utopia ” is made first and foremost for internal consume, for the ones that actually live the reality of the country. I think it works as some sort of subliminal endoctrination mainly for kids and ignorants ( although targeting profit ). I grew up watching American series and as a child received them uncritically.

    • NickDC

      It’s two-fold: Gemmel Moore was African American and Ed Buck is a prominent political donor. Sadly the media doesn’t shine a light on tragic deaths/murders or missing people that aren’t lily white and they can portray are pure as the driven snow.

      • Hunter O’Porn

        I sometimes watch stations from across the country when a story piques my interest. It appeared that KNBC (NBC LA) covered the story multiple days and followed up. They heavily featured Moore’s mother and calls for persecution.

        • NickDC

          You are correct that there has been some local coverage. However it is sad that national cable news focuses more on a social media post by the wife of some cabinet member than something important like Gemmel Moore’s death.

    • Pinko of the Grange

      There is a full on investigation by LACS Office. In LA any victim is better served by the Sheriff.

      Sadly the other’s that claimed to of witnessed Buck’s alleged fetish are in the wind.

      Immunity isn’t required to confirm, only careful answering of the Sheriff’s questions, with guidance provided by a competent lawyer paid by contributions or willing to work pro bono.

  • OverKill

    These rallies and attacks are just getting ridiculous. I can’t even watch the news anymore, it’s too damn depressing. The world is about to turn into anarchy.

    • NickDC

      I think much of it is that the media is now giving these losers attention and visibility.
      KKK, Nazi and white supremacist rallies have been happening for decades, it’s only in recent weeks that the media has taken notice and given these cunts more visibility than ever before.

      • A.C.

        Thank you!

      • skye3245

        but what would you suggest because we can’t ignore it. There has to be someway that things like this can be reported and these ppl causing violence can be at least shown to the public in the thought of keeping ppl safe. Do they need to be sensationalized? No. Do we need them having a place to spread there rhetoric? No. But we do need news outlets to be able to show this and show the impact it has on minorities of both color, gender, and sexual orientation. If not then those that think its ok will continue to do so. I agree with you that at times they are made out as almost celebrity like, but we need to find that equilibrium where we can report them without spreading the message

      • Russell47

        The media, the country & the world took notice because the fascist in the WH & his base said what fine people the Neo Nazis & the KKK werre & Duke & his ilk were pleased with their president. That never happened when we had saner presidents

    • Xzamilloh

      It’s really not. The media has a narrative to sell and I honestly feel that outlets like CNN, Fox News and MSNBC want to sensationalize this racial unrest because it keeps eyes glued to their channels

      • A.C.

        I say this sincerely, thank you for making this comment. It is by far the most honest assessment I have read to date on these matters. The media has given voice and view to a group whose very existence is the very model of worthless and inanity.

        • Pinko of the Grange

          I believe a “Damn Ted Turner” is apt here.

      • paradigm98

        Yes, while outwardly ignoring what this will do to Jewish and other minority communities. As it stands people are starting to worry, and become affraid.

        Working for a nonprofit is going to be really important the next 4 years…

        I have seen some of the horrible social consequences of this administration and sadly we all believe it will get worse.

  • Todd

    If white supremacists were involved, it is an early start to the chaos they’ll be bringing this weekend. Very sad time for this country.

  • NickDC

    San Francisco is the Disneyland of diversity (which is a wonderful thing); I guess white supremacists are stupider than I thought given that their event will be 20 heinous white supremacist losers vs 875,000 San Franciscans…

    How does Jessie Colter know that the two cunts who attempted to attack him are white supremacists?

    I’m disgusted that he had to endure that terrible experience, thankfully he got away unscathed and let’s hope the SFPD are able to bring the two cunts to justice.

    • Schnitzel

      He did not know that they were in fact white supremacists. The police informed him they were in town and it could be related.

      • NickDC

        Thanks for the clarification; appreciate it! Most importantly he’s safe. Let’s hope they catch these two cunts.

  • jimboivyo

    He goes public, yet won’t provide any details. States a police report was taken, but won’t provide any details. It’s troubling that he claims he was assaulted yet won’t warn his fellow sex workers with a description of what his attackers looked like. Size, hair color, tattoos, build, etc. how is this really helping anyone?

    • skye3245

      if theres a case open there may not be much he can say. He did inform that they will be there for a rally. I’m guessing ppl in SF know about the rally and its whereabouts. I know its a way to make money, but i suggest no sex workers work this weekend just to stay safe.

  • Maximus

    This is an unsurprising and commonplace occurrence, although these facts make the crime no less heinous. The federal government needs to designate and prosecute white supremacists, Klan members, Nazis, and neo-Confederates as terrorists or gang members.

    • NickDC

      First of all, you cannot prosecute someone simply for their beliefs, no matter how delusional or reprehensible as those beliefs may be. You can prosecute any individual or group if/when they violate the law.

      * Are these people disgusting? Yes.
      * Have these reprehensible groups held thousands of demonstrations/marches in your lifetime? Yes.
      * Have we heard about 99% of them? Nope.
      * Is the media providing a platform and visibility to these disgusting cunts now more than ever before? Yup.
      * And after the media moves on to the next story they decide to cover 24/7 will the membership in these groups grow as a result of the media manipulation? Sadly, yes.

      • WhimsyCotton

        Sure you can. Designate Nazi speech as hate speech, and prosecute accordingly. Nazis don’t get to enjoy the freedoms of the United States. They are not American.

        • A.C.

          Hate speech is protected under the first amendment as is freedom of assembly. You cannot prosecute a person or group for making bigoted comments or for being associated with a vile organization. It is verboten under our Constitution.

          • WhimsyCotton

            You didn’t misinterpret btw. My thought process was terrible. I made it seem like hate speech isn’t protected by the Constitution when what I wanted to say was that extreme right wing rhetoric shouldn’t be protected at all.

          • Xzamilloh

            Yeah, but why just extreme right wing rhetoric? How about both extreme left and right wing rhetoric?

          • nbtx27

            And then where do you stop? What is the dividing line between extreme rhetoric and just rhetoric? What is extreme right, extreme left? Who determines that, the people of San Francisco or the people of Alabama. I think you would get different results.
            Huge problems.
            Media is fanning the flames for ratings and $$$ of course. Stop giving these groups the attention they crave- that is how they grow.

          • Xzamilloh

            We agree. That’s why I asked.

          • WhimsyCotton

            There’s extreme left wing rhetoric?

          • Xzamilloh

            ANTIFA. I’d setting things on fire, and slamming a bike lock against someone’s head pretty damn extreme.

          • WhimsyCotton

            Is ANTIFA even a real thing? I hear that term used by conservatives and the alt-right, but I typically dismiss anything they have to say instantly.

          • Xzamilloh

            Yes, ANTIFA is a real movement. How have you not heard of them?

          • WhimsyCotton

            Like I said, I’ve heard of them, but since it mostly comes from the mouths of conservatives, I instantly dismiss it as exaggeration and bullshit.

            I don’t know how to feel about them. If the “alt-right” is allowed to exist why can’t Antifa? If Trump is allowed to preach hatred and violence, why can’t Antifa?

            Truthfully, I understand that we’re supposed to be “above it all,” but at some point, being “above it” isn’t enough. The left is always expected to be moral and logical, and the right has capitalized endlessly on that.

          • Xzamilloh

            Getting down in the mud with pigs and slinging it back is one thing. Assaulting people with bike locks, stabbing people who have “nazi haircuts”, and attacking anyone who defends free speech (and not the deplorable people exercising it) is something else. That’s slinging muddy bricks at the other pigs

          • WhimsyCotton

            Like with your edit, I’ve been finding that the people most adamant about “defending” free speech usually have an ulterior motive – such as secretly supporting those deplorable people who exercise it.

            I’m sure there are genuine free speech proponents who are needlessly worried, but in general, I’ve become very cynical about them all.

          • Xzamilloh

            I’m becoming cynical, period. I think I’m just about done commenting on social justice topics, because it’s exhausting, and there are far too many disingenuous people (In my Trump voice) on many sides. On many sides.

          • WhimsyCotton

            There are two sides. There’s the wrong side and the right side.

          • Xzamilloh

            Unfortunately, the right and wrong side is subjective, because hear anyone tell it, their side is the right side and the opposite side is the wrong side.

          • WhimsyCotton

            But one side has facts on its side. The other has bigotry. So while that side can claim it’s right until it’s blue in the face, it isn’t. This includes those that claim they aren’t bigots, but they support those who are bigots.

            It’s the same situation these people use against Muslims. If they don’t denounce the extremists, they support them. The same goes for Conservatives that don’t denounce the alt-reicht.

          • Xzamilloh

            That’s not the point… like I said, no matter what side you’re on, you will think your side is the right side. But, I do agree with your last paragraph because it denotes a strong lack of consistency I see on both sides, and that is holding one side to higher standard of scrutiny that they are unwilling to hold their own to, thus giving each side ample opportunities to highlight hypocrisy. Like Trump constantly dumping on Obama for not calling it “Islamic extremism” while he himself dragged his feet on calling out “White Supremacy”

          • A.C.

            Though I understand and sympathize with the sentiment underlying your feelings, censorship, particularly when wielded by the government, is too dangerous a weapon to be directed at content based speech. No matter how vile and odious the idea or words free speech must remain free. The answer to speech that we do not agree with is more, not less speech. It is social censurer not government censorship that maintains those first amendment freedoms.

          • Maximus

            Western European societies seem to effectively enforce their laws against hate speech without curtailing other forms of speech.

          • A.C.

            I am not sure that I agree that they have. Their campaign of censorship, for all of its good intentions, has nonetheless been quite ineffective in curtailing the rise in hate crimes and radicalism. By assigning hate speech to the margins instead of inviting it into the open for debate they created a sense of taboo and mystique about it that attracts more disaffected adherents. All the european experience has shown us is that the government is wonderfully good at posturing but not governing on this point. Beyond the questions of arbitrariness that deciding what constitutes hate speech raises – we must acknowledge that this is a problem at the limits of political intervention – our collective rebuke and challenge to it is the only viable solution.

            True liberalism in this area requires a strong constitution to withstand offense and do the hardwork of challenging instead of ostracizing. It is always more speech and not less that wins this conflict.

          • Maximus

            Parts of your argument are supported by the published research. You have access to academic journal databases through your institution, yes? There’s an informative literature review of the effects of hate speech laws in Australia that incorporates original interview data. Here’s the citation:

            Gelber, K., & McNamara, L. (2015). The effects of civil hate speech laws: Lessons from Australia. Law & Society Review, 49(3), 631-664. doi:10.1111/lasr.12152

            I agree with Gelber and McNamara’s view that the symbolism of hate speech laws are meaningful and beneficial. I also stand by my point that freedom of speech is typically only salient in the public discourse when the speech being suppressed is the prejudice of dominant—and by “dominant,” I mean “oppressive”—social groups. There’s some preliminary—replication studies using higher quality methods would be needed to produce results worthy of informing public policy—experimental psychological evidencethat the freedom of speech argument often isn’t about liberal democratic values, but rather, tends to be employed by highly prejudiced people when their freedom to express prejudiced attitudes is threatened. Of course, some people endorse the freedom of speech argument for consistent ideological reasons—I presume that you are one such person—but I would suggest that it is mostly employed to perpetuate the dominance of already-dominant social groups. Here’s the citation for the experimental research that I mentioned:

            White, M. H., & Crandall, C. S. (2017). Freedom of racist speech: Ego and expressive threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 413-429. doi:10.1037/pspi0000095

            I’m unconvinced by the fear of arbitrary application. As with all criminal laws, prosecutorial discretion and the trial court system exist to (mostly) prevent abuses and overreach. If the legal system is capable of identifying such an ill-defined concept as pornography, then it is capable of discerning whether certain language constitutes hate speech.

            The ultimate solution isn’t necessarily more speech. I fail to see how drowning out prejudiced messages with anti-prejudice messages isn’t just another form of suppression. Whether the social sanctions come from the state or from private citizens, people end up being shamed and ostracized.

          • A.C.

            One of my favorite quotes as of late is a favorite of two my colleagues with the ACLU – ‘verbal purity is not social progress’. The meaning is manifold, the import even more so, but in the context of this exchange, it is the embodiment of my opposition to the idea of government censorship. I find the idea of criminalizing protected speech for the sake of symbolic gesture to be on its face patronizing. I question who these superficial gestures are meant to help, because depriving bigot mongers the right to say what they will gladly act upon – acts of disrespect and or discrimination – does not provide me with any degree of increased security and I suspect that that is the shared sentiment of many minorities. The idea that we can somehow change hearts and minds by stifling speech reads as obtuse and ironic on its face. I will be convinced of the truly efficacious nature of speech regulating laws such as what we see in Western Europe when I see a year over year decrease in the visibility and prevalence of white supremacist inspired discrimination. We have not seen that globally, but in particular not in Western Europe. Until then I believe that the idea of content based restrictions on speech represent an inevitable slippery slide toward something too dangerous to first amendment free speech.

            While it is true that we often hear cries for free speech when a majority population expresses a minority viewpoint, we must always remember that those ideas are subject to a proverbial marketplace where we assign value to the ideas and either elevate them as they endure rigorous scrutiny, or discard them as they wither by the same rigor. I am comfortable with the status quo even in cases like that because I realize that the value of the thought or idea is measured by its persuasiveness and soundness and not the stature or subject position of the one offering it. Indeed, while white supremacy was raging during the civil rights movement and supported by the majority population of this country, it was the counter argument, supported by the minority, that claimed the day. Every idea does not have merit, but it should be given forum no matter who advances it because I believe that we will be able to give it its due weight ultimately.

            In our society we are well aware of what constitutes patently offensive language. I am concerned about the reach of regulation or the law when the language is not obviously offensive. I am too skeptical (as we all should be) to believe that the government can or will wield its censorship laws with the sort of fundamental fairness it must to make such laws worthwhile and fit within the ambit of the first amendment. Pornography is a very nebulous term and concept, but that is why the government is constrained to regulates it for content that is patently illegal or offensive – child exploitation, rape, etc. In the same way, the government only seeks to criminalize speech that incites violence.

            To your third point, I make the distinction between irrational counters to hate speech such as the hecklers veto and a rational challenge to it. As Lord Byron says – I fight for you not just against the tyrant but against the mob (paraphrase). The distinction he is making is clear, we are not engaging in an exercise to merely ‘drown out’ the opposition, we are engaging in an intellectual exercise intended to uphold the spirit of civil society. Civil society turn in part on the idea that disagreements in thought can be resolved through an intellectual dialectic which requires free speech. Neither government censorship nor social marginalization achieves these ends. These ideas remain despite their potential government and definite social censor, the only thing that truly removes them is the challenge of “more speech”; a thoughtful and well supported knock to the absurd underpinnings of their argument. As a matter of principle and practice then, I do not support the idea of censorship on any level. I find the appeal to it to be lazy and anathema to the spirit and letter of the first amendment. While I appreciate and applaud your want to see a society devoid of the ugliness of these ideas, I have come to embrace the indefiniteness of it, relish the opportunity to confront it, and remain ever concerned that any attempt to limit it to be a bridge too far to the day when you or I might say something that someone finds offensive and we are silenced accordingly.

          • Maximus

            It is naive to believe that the goal of white nationalism is merely peaceful segregation. The ideology is one of racial supremacy, not one of incompatible differences to which value judgments need not be applied. Nazis, Klan members, and Confederates are groups whose sole purpose is social oppression; social oppression is always buttressed by violence. Simply consider the history of these groups: The Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust and sought to conquer much of the world. The KKK lynched black people and assassinated civil rights advocates. The Confederates seceded and waged war with the U.S. in order to preserve the institution of slavery. These were the inherently violent ideologies on display in Charlottesville—they literally showed up in battle gear—and a woman was murdered because of them. The only factors that protected the protestors then, and the only factors that protect them in these debates on free speech, were/are their whiteness and their Christianity.

          • A.C.

            I am not naive on this point, merely nuanced. The distinction between the exercise of free speech and indeed, thought, and violent action is one that I will fight vociferously to defend. The former is an essential ingredient to civil society, the other is a criminal act that the very opposite of civility. When a white supremacist wishes to see all people of color, jews, and other minority groups dead, they are expressing an odious thought that requires an intellectual challenge. When that same white supremacist assault, batters, murders or attempts to do any of the preceding, then his actions are criminal and he should be punished accordingly. In your examples we see that distinction and accordingly no need to limit or criminalize thought or speech that does not rise to the level of incitement. While it is true that repressive societies often use violence to suppress, it is not the preferred form of action for modern white supremacist like David Duke, who has advocated using the democractic process to gain positions of power that would allow those of his horrid ilk to work toward the betterment of white society. In this case they are still preaching a disgusting message, but their method is also not violent. If that is the case then the tie between the two is no inextricable and requires nuance in the final analysis.

            This is also a position that I am compelled to defend because I believe that your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, can be applied to several groups whose mission and ideas are on the whole noble, but none the less grounded in the idea that violence is the only means by which they can achieve their ends. Reference if you will the FALN, The New Black Panther Party, The Weather Underground, ACTUP, and as of late ANTIFA (whose website was banned in Germany over night because their mission was deemed violent and in violation of speech codes). If we decide not to censor groups that preach a message that we like, but advocate violence to achieve their ends, then we have exposed what our true intention is – content based regulation and not the maintenance of orderly society. It is neither their whiteness nor their positive christianity that protects, it is the first amendment alone.

      • A.C.

        Your analysis and conclusions are all on point – sadly.

      • Maximus

        I’m not suggesting that they be prosecuted for simply holding certain beliefs. I’m suggesting that they be prosecuted for organizing around and advocating for a violent ideology. The First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that encourages violence, nor does it protect criminal conspiracy. I’d also argue that Nazis and Confederates are guilty of crimes listed under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2381-2391.

    • Star69Me

      No, @disqus_idRbXNsMaI:disqus BLM is the only terrorist organization the current administration recognizes. The rest are just rallying in support of their cultural foundations and heritage!! How dare you think otherwise!! #Sarcasm https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f8ec6c50ed887b6f8a0e4eee87fce97fcc340ebe4b61e1e3dad485ed9afcc081.gif

  • paradigm98

    As a person who studied free speech, in relation to law, hate speech is not considered free speech. You cannot state anything that could insight violence, no yelling fire

    Example: You cannot yell queer in a room full of gay people and expect not cause confrontation. If the gay individual punched the guy both parties would be equally at fault and some cases the gay man would be issued with leway because he was reacting to hateful speech that caused his violent reaction.

    Yes, they have a right to free speech but that only goes so far, our laws aren’t keen on violence.

    They can say what they want but the moment their speech causes violent acts, they are liable.

    • A.C.

      There is a distinction between ‘hate speech’ and ‘fighting words’ or incitement to violence. Your examples reference the latter, in a matter of speaking, and not the former. Using a bigoted slur is protected speech regardless of the potential reaction from those who might be or are offended. Incitement to violence requires that the statement in question be an operational threat that calls for violence (imminently), battery and or assault. The dividing line is not whether someone is offended by the statement nor is it if the statement is objectively offensive, rather whether the statement directs someone to take a course of violent action that would obviously be illegal. We may revile ‘hate speech’ but criminalizing it would cause far more harm than liberation.

    • Pinko of the Grange

      Stay in law school.

      • paradigm98

        I never said i was a law student and you don’t have to be rude.

        • Pinko of the Grange

          “As a person who studied free speech, in relation to law,”

          That only happens in Law School.

          Your comment is like some right-wingnut tell the world the the 14th Amendment is only about slavery, because they have studied the CotUS.

          Here is first flaw. some can yell, at another, anything they want including “your mother wears army boots” as loud as they want. That isn’t a call for violence. At best it is disturbing the peace.

          • paradigm98

            You can learn about law without, being in law school. Political science and well as philosophy teaches you about the rule of law. An undergraduate American history course covers law and free speech.

            My point is that this is all based on violence, in a short time happening due to the speech hate speech.
            If you yell the comment about someone’s mother and they punch you isn’t that inciting violence.

            I am unsure why everyone believes my statement is crazy, or why they feel it is needed to question my intellegence but it isn’t a far fetched argument. As if saying something about when or how I learned law is somehow dimished because I don’t have a JD..or that it isn’t possible that I could learn about law via a different major… I have a pre-law degree which requires a basic understanding of law..

            You say something someone dislikes they react in a violent manner, a person could argue the speech was the cause for the violence. I wasnt implying if it was correct or not but that is is possible given the right circumstances.

            I don’t not understand why the automatic reaction on this site is to attack another person for having a debate or discourse. My reaction to questioning my intellect was not needed.

  • Pinko of the Grange

    Killed…Really?

    There is no proof only supposition. Even if the diary is true, that still doesn’t mean in the fatal incident, Buck was the proximate cause. Legally the acts as described in the diary he would only guilty of providing a controlled substance that resulted in unintentional death, and the DA would have to prove that Buck, not only purchased, or facilitated the purchase, he also handed the fatal dose to Moore. In court money isn’t coercion only threats of immediate violence are. Innocent till proven guilty.

    Morally if any of the allegations are true, Buck is a failed person who should go crawl under a rock with his veins open, and save the rest of us from the circus that is going to follow.

  • Derek

    I’m very confused. If sex work is illegal, how is this man able to report it? — Another thing, maybe it’s just me, but if you don’t want to be assaulted, then why are you a sex worker? Isn’t that like not wanting to see blood by becoming a doctor or not wanting to interact with children by becoming a teacher? Prostitutes can’t be so naive to think that good, stand-up people are going to want their services, can they??

  • Maximus

    I’m not talking about prosecuting people for using racial epithets or propagating racist stereotypes; I’m talking about terrorist ideologies. Nazis and the KKK espouse violent ideologies that do incite imminent lawless action. The corpse of Heather Heyer and the injured bodies of her fellow counter-protestors clearly attest to that fact. White Christian supremacy is, after all, built upon violence. The demonstrations in Charlottesville were acts of terrorism, and it’s completely disingenuous and historically inaccurate to argue otherwise. These groups meet the definition of domestic terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 2331. If imams who preach violent jihad are criminals, then so are white supremacists. If the Charlottesville protestors had been brown people waving Islamic State flags and carrying military grade weapons, they would have been rightly killed by the police. To argue that any of this shit is protected by the First Amendment is ridiculous.

    • A.C.

      Your entire retort shades the difference between hate speech and incitement to violence. Constitutionally speaking, there is a significant difference between believing that non-whites are inferior and therefore should not exist and encouraging individuals to take up arms against them in an attempt at genocide. The difference is between racially motivated aspirations of ethno-purity and an operational plan for violence. White Supremacist share a kinship with the Imams who preach violent jihad in that they both subscribe to supremacist ideology, however the distinction, which is more important to this conversation, is clear – the former’s goals and ideas demand and desire separatism, the second preaches that violence overthrow is the only way to engender resolution – the difference between a thought and an action. At times the distinctions turn on slight nuances like that but that is by design. The framers of the constitution wanted to ensure that ‘Congress shall make no law’ abridging the freedom of speech so that we gave the greatest of all protections to that most sacred of rights. Incitement to violence is an uncivil act, hate speech is merely offensive to the civil. Terrorism, though bandied about haphazardly, has a very specific definition and application in the law and it should not be stretched beyond that legal meaning to capture and or criminalize ideas that we find distasteful or upsetting. Its express purview is to criminalize acts that are designed to foment terror through the use of unambiguous violence, not demonstration.

  • FitRN

    WHAT!!! you mean the gay bigot white men aren’t accepted by the White Supremacist. I thought they would be a perfect match lmao.

  • paradigm98

    “The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true
    threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to
    produce imminent illegal conduct — i.e., illegal conduct in the next few
    hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in
    the future. But these are very narrow exceptions.” -pretty much what i was getting at.

    Their speech could be considered an act of violence or a call to violence… not to mention the actions taken the night before the rally.

  • paultacoma51

    Wow, this sounds like a hate crime to me. But prosecuting them by the feds is incredibly difficult.

  • BLACKjHAMMER

    Jessie I am so glad that you did not get hurt because it could have been so much worst . I am also grateful that you did not let the stamina of working in the sex trade stop you from going to the authorities and hopefully your description will lead two the arrest of these to despicable CREEPS !!!